On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 09:53:26AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 09:47:09AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > The core team has considered this matter, and has concluded that it's
> > time to establish a firm project policy that we will not accept any code
> > that is known to be patent-encumbered. The long-term legal risks and
> > complications involved in doing that seem insurmountable, given the
> > community's amorphous legal nature and the existing Postgres license
> > wording (neither of which are open for negotiation here). Furthermore,
> > Postgres has always been very friendly to creation of closed-source
> > derivatives, but it's hard to see how inclusion of patented code would
> > not cause serious problems for those. The potential benefits of
> > accepting patented code just don't seem to justify trying to navigate
> > these hazards.
>
> Just to add a summary to this, any patent assignment to Postgres would
> have to allow free patent use for all code, under _any_ license. This
> effectively makes the patent useless, except for defensive use, even for
> the patent owner. I think everyone here agrees on this.
>
> The open question is whether it is useful for the PGDG to accept such
> patents for defensive use. There are practical problems with this (PGDG
> is not a legal entity) and operational complexity too. The core team's
> feeling is that it not worth it, but that discussion can be re-litigated
> on this email list if desired. The discussion would have to relate to
> such patents in general, not to the specific Fujitsu proposal. If it
> was determined that such defensive patents were desired, we can then
> consider the Fujitsu proposal.
And the larger question is whether a patent free for use by software
under any license can be used in a defensive way. If not, it means we
have no way forward here.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +