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 <br...@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 +