2018-07-24 8:13 GMT+02:00 Tsunakawa, Takayuki < tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com>:
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:br...@momjian.us] > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 08:20:53AM +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > > > Yes, that's one unfortunate future, which I don't want to happen > > > of course. I believe PostgreSQL should accept patent for further > > > evolution, because PostgreSQL is now a popular, influential software > > > that many organizations want to join. > > > > Why did you say this last sentence? > > That's a simple story (but might still be a pipedream now.) PostgreSQL > may become popular enough to be considered a public property like Linux, > OpenStack and Hadoop. Then more companies may want to join its > development. For example, Greenplum may want to contribute its clever > planner code to better align with the latest version of PostgreSQL, IBM may > want to give its Netezza-specific code to reduce maintenance burdon, and > AWS/Microsoft/Google may want to contribute some basic scalability and HA > technology so that they can focus on more advanced features with less > rebase burdon. I think PostgreSQL community can be ready to open its door > a bit more to embrace big companies with many patents. > This back door can be really dangerous for companies that support PostgreSQL now like EDB, PostgreSQL Pro, 2nd quadrant and maybe other. The popularity of PostgreSQL is not argument against patent trolls and patent lawyer. Regards Pavel > Regards > Takayuki Tsunakawa > > > > >
