Hi,
On 2018-07-23 16:32:55 +0200, David Fetter 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:
> > >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 invalidate that.
>
> Until this has been upheld in court, it's just a vague idea.
To my knowledge this has long been settled. Which makes a lot of sense,
because this is relevant *far* beyond just open source. FWIW, in the US
it's explicit law, see https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/365
subclause (n). Anyway, should we decide that this would be a good idea
as a policy matter, we'd *OBVIOUSLY* have to check in with lawyers to
see whether our understanding is correct. But that doesn't mean we
should just assume it's impossible without any sort of actual
understanding.
You're just muddying the waters.
Greetings,
Andres Freund