Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD wrote:
>
> > >> FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
> > >> is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
> > >
> > >>
> >
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040098541%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040098541&RS=DN/20040098541
> > >
> > > Ugh. We could hope that the patent wouldn't be granted, but I think
> > > it unlikely, unless Jan is aware of prior art (like a publication
> > > predating the filing date). I fear we'll have to change or remove
> > > that code.
> > >
> > > regards, tom lane
> >
> > Unfortunately no. The document that inspired me to adapt ARC for
> > PostgreSQL is from the USENIX File & Storage Technologies Conference
> > (FAST), March 31, 2003, San Francisco, CA.
> >
> > I am seriously concerned about this and think we should not knowingly
> > release code that is possibly infringing a patent.
>
> I thought IBM granted the right to use these methods in OSS software.
> PostgreSQL is OSS software, thus only such entities relicensing pg
> need to worry about the patent.
ARC wasn't in the 500 patents released to open source. Also, I don't
think the offer extends to companys like Pervasive and Command Prompt
that ship commercial versions of PostgreSQL.
> Also the algo is probably sufficiently altered already to not be subject
> to the patent, no ?
I hope so.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073