Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending)patents?

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 08:20:53AM +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: Nico Williams [mailto:nico@cryptonector.com]
> > On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 10:20:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > It's entirely possible to dual license contributions and everything. Why
> > > are you making such aggressive statements about a, so far, apparently
> > > good faith engagement?
> > 
> > One problem is that many contributors would not want to be tainted by
> > knowledge of the patents in question (since that leads to triple
> > damages).
> > 
> > How would you protect contributors and core developers from tainting?
> 
> IIUC, you are concerned about the possibility that PG developers would
> read the patent document (not the PG source code), and unconsciously
> use the patented algorithm for other software that's not related to
> PostgreSQL.  That would only be helped by not reading the patent
> document...  BTW, are you relieved the current PostgreSQL doesn't
> contain any patented code?  As far as I know, PostgreSQL development
> process doesn't have a step to check patent and copyright
> infringement.

You're proposing to include code that implements patented ideas with a
suitable patent grant.  I would be free to not read the patent, but what
if the code or documents mention the relevant patented algorithms?

If I come across something like this in the PG source code:

    /* The following is covered by patents US#... and so on */

now what?

I could choose not to read it.  But what if I have to touch that code in
order to implement an unrelated feature due to some required refactoring
of internal interfaces used by your code?  Now I have to read it, and
now I'm tainted, or I must choose to abandon my project.

That is a heavy burden on the community.  The community may want to
extract a suitable patent grant to make that burden lighter.

> > One possible answer is that you wouldn't.  But that might reduce the
> > size of the community, or lead to a fork.
> 
> Yes, that's one unfortunate future, which I don't want to happen of
> course.  I believe PostgreSQL should accept patent for further
> evolution, because PostgreSQL is now a popular, influential software
> that many organizations want to join.

I don't speak for the PG community, nor the core developers.  Speaking
for myself only, I hope that you can get, and PG accepts only, the
widest possible royalty-free patent grant to the community, allowing
others to not be constrained in making derivatives of PG.

My advice is to write up a patent grant that allows all to use the
relevant patents royalty-free with a no-lawsuit covenant.  I.e., make
only defensive use of your patents.

Nico
--