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.
Similarly icenses like Apache 2 grant a perpetual and irrevocable patent grant for the use in the contribution.
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.