On 2018-07-23 09:56:47 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 06:31:14AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On July 23, 2018 6:25:42 AM PDT, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > >On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 08:29:08AM +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > >> Thank you for supporting me, Andres. And please don't mind, David.
> > >I
> > >> don't think you are attacking me. I understand your concern and that
> > >> you are also trying to protect PostgreSQL.
> > >>
> > >> On the other hand, I think TPL seems less defensive. I read
> > >> in some report that Apache License and some other open source
> > >> licenses were created partly due to lack of patent description
> > >> in BSD and GPLv2.
> > >>
> > >> How can we assure you? How about attaching something like the
> > >> following to relevant patches or on our web site?
> > >>
> > >> [Excerpt from Red Hat Patent Promise] Red Hat intends Our Promise to
> > >> be irrevocable (except as stated herein), and binding and enforceable
> > >> against Red Hat and assignees of, or successors to, Red Hat’s
> > >> patents (and any patents directly or indirectly issuing from Red
> > >> Hat’s patent applications). As part of Our Promise, if Red Hat
> > >> sells, exclusively licenses, or otherwise assigns or transfers
> > >> patents or patent applications to a party, we will require the party
> > >> to agree in writing to be bound to Our Promise for those patents
> > >> and for patents directly or indirectly issuing on those patent
> > >> applications. We will also require the party to agree in writing to
> > >so
> > >> bind its own assignees, transferees, and exclusive licensees.
> > >
> > >Notice this makes no mention of what happens to the patents if the
> > >company goes bankrupt. My guess is that in such a situation the
> > >company
> > >would have no control over who buys the patents or how they are used.
> >
> > It explicitly says irrevocable and successors. Why seems squarely aimed at your concern. Bankruptcy wouldn't just
invalidatethat.
>
> They can say whatever they want, but if they are bankrupt, what they say
> doesn't matter much. My guess is that they would have to give their
> patents to some legal entity that owns them so it is shielded from
> bankrupcy.
Huh? Bancruptcy doesn't simply invalidate licenses which successors then
can ignore. By that logic a license to use the code, like the PG
license, would be just as ineffectual
Greetings,
Andres Freund