From: Chris Travers [mailto:chris.trav...@adjust.com]
> For example a competitor of yours could copy the relevant pieces of the
> PostgreSQL code, refactor this into a library, and then use it as a
> derivative work and this would be entirely within the copyright license.
> They could then license
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 19:01 Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-07-27 11:15:00 -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> > Even assuming you can't change the PG license, you could still:
> >
> > - require disclosure in contributions
>
> That really has no upsides, except poison the area. Either we
On 07/27/2018 01:42 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-07-27 13:33:28 -0400, Chapman Flack wrote:
>> On 07/27/2018 01:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>>> the patch and people doing so can reasonably be expected to know about
>>> the patents, making further contributions by them worse.
>>
>> I'm not
On 2018-07-27 13:33:28 -0400, Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 07/27/2018 01:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > the patch and people doing so can reasonably be expected to know about
> > the patents, making further contributions by them worse.
>
> I'm not sure this line of thinking, which seems rooted
On 07/27/2018 01:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> the patch and people doing so can reasonably be expected to know about
> the patents, making further contributions by them worse.
I'm not sure this line of thinking, which seems rooted in notions of
tainted or cleanroom development from the
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:01:40AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-07-27 11:15:00 -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> > Even assuming you can't change the PG license, you could still:
> >
> > - require disclosure in contributions
>
> That really has no upsides, except poison the area. [...]
Hi,
On 2018-07-27 11:15:00 -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> Even assuming you can't change the PG license, you could still:
>
> - require disclosure in contributions
That really has no upsides, except poison the area. Either we reject
the patch and people doing so can reasonably be expected to
Even assuming you can't change the PG license, you could still:
- require disclosure in contributions
- require a wide grant in contributions
- document all such grants separately from the copyright license
Putting the grants in the license is convenient, but it's not required
to include
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 09:30:45AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> If you think that the lack of a CLA and a patent grant never causes
> extensive conversations with legal, I am quite certain that you are
> incorrect. I know of multiple instances where this has been a
> concern.
>
> Other open
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> However, that does *not* mean that adding patent-related qualifiers to the
> license is going to be OK with everybody. An easy counterexample is that
> we get code from some of those selfsame companies with private forks,
> which then feeds
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:00 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> This is a killer point here- clearly the people who have been
>> contributing to PG aren't going to complain about their contributions
>> being released as part of some other work which has a different license
>> or
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:53 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> What made PostgreSQL attractive to those companies in the first place
> was a known lack of need to have Extensive Conversations with Legal™
> about licensing and other financial/IP matters.
If you think that the lack of a CLA and a patent
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:00 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> This is a killer point here- clearly the people who have been
> contributing to PG aren't going to complain about their contributions
> being released as part of some other work which has a different license
> or they'd have gone after the
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 04:42:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's barely possible that we could get current and new contributors to
> sign some kind of CLA containing anti-patent terms, but I don't think
> there's any hope of amending the distribution license.
Leaving aside whether you could
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2018-07-26 16:42:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund writes:
> > > On 2018-07-26 09:51:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> There's been an awful lot of discussion in this thread that supposes that
> > >> we can change the Postgres
On 2018-07-26 16:42:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2018-07-26 09:51:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> There's been an awful lot of discussion in this thread that supposes that
> >> we can change the Postgres license. Let me just point out very clearly
> >> that no such
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2018-07-26 09:51:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There's been an awful lot of discussion in this thread that supposes that
>> we can change the Postgres license. Let me just point out very clearly
>> that no such thing is going to happen. There will be no changes, no
>>
On 2018-07-26 09:51:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Chris Travers writes:
> > What about adding an extra line to the license that indicates that the
> > copyright owners also give all patent licenses which are both in their
> > power to grant and also needed for exercise of the copyright license and
Chris Travers writes:
> What about adding an extra line to the license that indicates that the
> copyright owners also give all patent licenses which are both in their
> power to grant and also needed for exercise of the copyright license and
> require that new code contributions use this license
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:28 AM Tsunakawa, Takayuki <
tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As I asked at the PGCon developer meeting this year, we'd like to offer
> our company's patents and patentapplications license to the
> PostgreSQL community free of charge. If I heard
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 9:33 AM Oleksandr Shulgin <
oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 8:35 PM Nico Williams
> wrote:
>
>>
>> What are you proposing anyways? That every commit come with a patent
>> search?
>>
>
> I would propose that everyone wasting their time and
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 8:35 PM Nico Williams wrote:
>
> What are you proposing anyways? That every commit come with a patent
> search?
>
I would propose that everyone wasting their time and effort to discuss this
issue here, would rather spend that time working towards putting an end to
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:45:58AM -0400, Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 07/25/2018 11:25 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
>
> > I don't understand why it's not obvious that one can unknowingly and
> > accidentally re-invent someone else's idea.
>
> It's perfectly obvious. It's the chief reason the whole
On 2018-Jul-07, David Fetter composed:
> If they have no plans to practice any exclusive rights, our standard thing
> process where individuals submit things and consent to have us name them
> with the PGDG copyright and distribute them under TPL would be the
> most straightforward
On 2018-07-25 11:45:58 -0400, Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 07/25/2018 11:25 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
>
> > I don't understand why it's not obvious that one can unknowingly and
> > accidentally re-invent someone else's idea.
>
> It's perfectly obvious. It's the chief reason the whole topic
> of
On 07/25/2018 11:25 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
> I don't understand why it's not obvious that one can unknowingly and
> accidentally re-invent someone else's idea.
It's perfectly obvious. It's the chief reason the whole topic
of software patents has been deeply controversial for so long.
You seem
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 02:48:01PM +0700, Benjamin Scherrey wrote:
> If you violate a patent, knowingly or otherwise, you are subject to
> penalties (perhaps not treble but still penalties) and will have to remove
> the offending code unless a deal is reached with the patent holder.
Unless you do
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 03:06:22AM -0400, Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 07/25/18 01:56, Nico Williams wrote:
>
> > Wrong. With patents the important thing is not to know about them when
> > you implement -- if you come up with the same idea by accident (which,
> > of course, is obviously entirely
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 06:13:37AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:br...@momjian.us]
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 08:20:53AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > > Yes, that's one unfortunate future, which I don't want to happen
> > > of course. I believe
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Nico Williams
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 06:29:37PM -0400, Isaac Morland wrote:
> > On 24 July 2018 at 18:17, Nico Williams wrote:
> > > Note that it's OK to *accidentally* implement patented algorithms as
> > > long as the author of the contribution
On 07/25/18 01:56, Nico Williams wrote:
> Wrong. With patents the important thing is not to know about them when
> you implement -- if you come up with the same idea by accident (which,
> of course, is obviously entirely possible) then you are not subject to
> trebble damages.
Even if the
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 06:29:37PM -0400, Isaac Morland wrote:
> On 24 July 2018 at 18:17, Nico Williams wrote:
> > Note that it's OK to *accidentally* implement patented algorithms as
> > long as the author of the contribution didn't know about. There's no
> > trebble damages in that case, and
On 24 July 2018 at 18:17, Nico Williams wrote:
> Note that it's OK to *accidentally* implement patented algorithms as
> long as the author of the contribution didn't know about. There's no
> trebble damages in that case, and no tainting of others, plus,
> contributors and code
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 04:28:51PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
> > Clean room design addresses copyright-related issues, not patents.
>
> Correct. It's important folks realise that!
Indeed.
It's also important to know, when reading PG source
On 07/24/2018 11:20 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Probably easiest way forward is to state the requirement and have
> someone untainted by the patent come up with a clean-room
> re-implementation.
That sounds like an approach based on copyright considerations.
A patent, on the other hand, will
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> On 07/24/2018 05:20 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> On 2018-Jul-24, Dave Page wrote:
>>
>> tldr; it's a crap ton of work, risk and uncertainty for what might well be
>>> zero benefit at the moment.
>>>
>>
>> Probably easiest way forward is to
On 07/24/2018 05:20 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2018-Jul-24, Dave Page wrote:
tldr; it's a crap ton of work, risk and uncertainty for what might well be
zero benefit at the moment.
Probably easiest way forward is to state the requirement and have
someone untainted by the patent come up with
On 2018-Jul-24, Dave Page wrote:
> tldr; it's a crap ton of work, risk and uncertainty for what might well be
> zero benefit at the moment.
Probably easiest way forward is to state the requirement and have
someone untainted by the patent come up with a clean-room
re-implementation.
--
Álvaro
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 8:12 PM, Joshua D. Drake
wrote:
> On 07/23/2018 12:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> So, is it FUD? The core needs paid-for legal advice, not speculation.
>>>
>>> I'm quite certain that a software license can make a patent grant to the
>>> satisfaction of many open source
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 +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > > Yes, that's one unfortunate future, which I don't want to happen
> > > of course. I
From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:br...@momjian.us]
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 08:20:53AM +, 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
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:12:03PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 07/23/2018 12:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>So, is it FUD? The core needs paid-for legal advice, not speculation.
> >>
> >>I'm quite certain that a software license can make a patent grant to the
> >>satisfaction of many open
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 03:06:13PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 02:02:40PM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 01:12:19PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:27:49AM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> > > > Perhaps patent law [in
On 07/23/2018 12:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
So, is it FUD? The core needs paid-for legal advice, not speculation.
I'm quite certain that a software license can make a patent grant to the
satisfaction of many open source communities, and almost certainly to
the satisfaction of the PG
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 01:12:49PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:37:05AM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:40:41AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Sun Microsystems seemed reasonably trustworthy too.
> >
> > Are there patent grants from Sun
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 02:02:40PM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 01:12:19PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:27:49AM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> > > Perhaps patent law [in some countries] requires contracts as opposed to
> > > licenses?
> >
> >
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 01:12:19PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:27:49AM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> > Perhaps patent law [in some countries] requires contracts as opposed to
> > licenses?
>
> Yes, I really don't know. I have just seen enough "oh, we didn't think
>
On 2018-07-23 13:14:04 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:38:47AM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:55:01AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:40:41AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 08:19:35AM
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:38:47AM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:55:01AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:40:41AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 08:19:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > I'm fairly sure that I'm
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:37:05AM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:40:41AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 08:19:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I'm fairly sure that I'm right. But my point isn't that we should "trust
> > > Andres implicitly
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:27:49AM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 09:56:47AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 06:31:14AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > It explicitly says irrevocable and successors. Why seems squarely
> > > aimed at your concern.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:55:01AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:40:41AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 08:19:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I'm fairly sure that I'm right. But my point isn't that we should "trust
> > > Andres implicitly
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:40:41AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 08:19:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I'm fairly sure that I'm right. But my point isn't that we should "trust
> > Andres implicitly ™" (although that's obviously not a bad starting point
> > ;)). But
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:13:48AM -0400, Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 07/23/2018 10:01 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 09:56:47AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 06:31:14AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > It explicitly says irrevocable and successors. Why seems squarely
> > aimed at your concern. Bankruptcy wouldn't just invalidate that.
>
> They can say whatever they
Hi,
On 2018-07-23 11:40:41 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Sun Microsystems seemed reasonably trustworthy too.
I don't really agree with that characterization (they've a long history
of weird behaviour around open source, LONG before the Oracle
acquisition). But it doesn't really matter, as
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:40:41AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 08:19:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I'm fairly sure that I'm right. But my point isn't that we should "trust
> > Andres implicitly ™" (although that's obviously not a bad starting point
> > ;)). But
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 08:19:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I'm fairly sure that I'm right. But my point isn't that we should "trust
> Andres implicitly ™" (although that's obviously not a bad starting point
> ;)). But rather, given that that is a reasonable assumption that such
> agreements
Hi,
On 2018-07-23 17:11:30 +0200, David Fetter wrote:
> Yet again, you are assuming contrary to reality that you can simply
> read and understand how legal code will operate without court cases to
> back it.
Oh, FFS. You're implying serious bad faith here (and not just on my
part, but also on
On 2018-07-23 11:06:25 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:59:20AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > 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
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:59:20AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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 wrote:
> > > >Notice this makes no mention of what
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:59:20AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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 wrote:
> > > >Notice this makes no mention of what
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 wrote:
> > >Notice this makes no mention of what happens to the patents if the
> > >company goes bankrupt. My guess is that
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:42:11AM -0400, Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 07/23/2018 10:25 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >> Isn't 'defensive', in patent-speak, used to mean 'establishing prior
> >> art usable to challenge future patent claims by others on the same
> >> technique'?
> >>
> >> Is there any
On 07/23/2018 10:25 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Isn't 'defensive', in patent-speak, used to mean 'establishing prior
>> art usable to challenge future patent claims by others on the same
>> technique'?
>>
>> Is there any way that conditions of use, or lack of them, on an
>> existing patent, would
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:32:34AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-07-23 10:27:10 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:08:32AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2018-07-23 09:56:47 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > They can say whatever they want, but if they are
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 06:31:14AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On July 23, 2018 6:25:42 AM PDT, Bruce Momjian 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
On 2018-07-23 10:27:10 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:08:32AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2018-07-23 09:56:47 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > They can say whatever they want, but if they are bankrupt, what they say
> > > doesn't matter much. My guess is that
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:08:32AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-07-23 09:56:47 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 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
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:13:48AM -0400, Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 07/23/2018 10:01 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
On 07/23/2018 10:01 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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.
Isn't 'defensive', in patent-speak, used to mean 'establishing prior
art usable
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 wrote:
> > >On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 08:29:08AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > >> Thank you for supporting me, Andres. And
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
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 08:20:53AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > One possible answer is that you wouldn't. But that might reduce the
> > size of the community, or lead to a fork.
>
> Yes, that's one unfortunate future, which I don't want to happen
> of course. I believe PostgreSQL should
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 06:31:14AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On July 23, 2018 6:25:42 AM PDT, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 08:29:08AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> >> Thank you for supporting me, Andres. And please don't mind, David.
> >I
> >> don't think you are
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 09:47:09AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" writes:
> > From: Nico Williams [mailto:n...@cryptonector.com]
> >> ... But that might reduce the
> >> size of the community, or lead to a fork.
>
> > Yes, that's one unfortunate future, which I don't want to
On July 23, 2018 6:25:42 AM PDT, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 08:29:08AM +, 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
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 08:29:08AM +, 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
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 9:01 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-07-07 20:51:56 +0200, David Fetter wrote:
> > As to "dual license," that's another legal thicket in which we've been
> > wise not to involve ourselves. "Dual licensing" is generally used to
> > assert proprietary rights
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 09:33:21AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 12 July 2018 at 09:10, Tsunakawa, Takayuki <
> tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > From: Nico Williams [mailto:n...@cryptonector.com]
> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:29:12AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > > > How can
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 01:10:33AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: Nico Williams [mailto:n...@cryptonector.com]
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:29:12AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > > How can one make defensive use of his patent if he allows everyone to
> > > use it royalty-free?
On 12 July 2018 at 09:10, Tsunakawa, Takayuki <
tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> From: Nico Williams [mailto:n...@cryptonector.com]
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:29:12AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > > How can one make defensive use of his patent if he allows everyone to
> > >
From: Nico Williams [mailto:n...@cryptonector.com]
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:29:12AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > How can one make defensive use of his patent if he allows everyone to
> > use it royalty-free? Can he use his patent for cross-licensing
> > negotiation if some commercial
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:29:12AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: Nico Williams [mailto:n...@cryptonector.com]
> > My advice is to write up a patent grant that allows all to use the
> > relevant patents royalty-free with a no-lawsuit covenant. I.e., make
> > only defensive use of your
From: Nico Williams [mailto:n...@cryptonector.com]
> You're proposing to include code that implements patented ideas with a
> suitable patent grant. I would be free to not read the patent, but what
> if the code or documents mention the relevant patented algorithms?
>
> If I come across
From: Nico Williams [mailto:n...@cryptonector.com]
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 01:03:44AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > As a practical matter, when and where are you planning to post the
> > project policy? How would you check and prevent patented code?
>
> PG may need a contributor
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 01:03:44AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> > 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
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
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 08:20:53AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: Nico Williams [mailto:n...@cryptonector.com]
> > On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 10:20:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > It's entirely possible to dual license contributions and everything. Why
> > > are you making such
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:34 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki <
tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> From: Dave Page [mailto:dp...@pgadmin.org]
> > SFLC have acted as the projects counsel in the past, so I'm not surprised
> > they aren't talking to you; you won't be a known contact to them as a PG
> >
From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> 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
From: Dave Page [mailto:dp...@pgadmin.org]
> SFLC have acted as the projects counsel in the past, so I'm not surprised
> they aren't talking to you; you won't be a known contact to them as a PG
> contributor, and as a Fujitsu employee there would likely be a conflict
> of interest for them to talk
"Tsunakawa, Takayuki" writes:
> From: Nico Williams [mailto:n...@cryptonector.com]
>> ... But that might reduce the
>> size of the community, or lead to a fork.
> Yes, that's one unfortunate future, which I don't want to happen of
> course. I believe PostgreSQL should accept patent for further
Hi
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki <
tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> From: Markus Wanner [mailto:markus.wan...@2ndquadrant.com]
> > equally sure there are well intended ones as well. For example, I'd
> > expect patent pools (including the Open Invention Network,
From: Markus Wanner [mailto:markus.wan...@2ndquadrant.com]
> equally sure there are well intended ones as well. For example, I'd
> expect patent pools (including the Open Invention Network, cited by the
> OP) to hire non-IANAL personnel who know Legalese well enough to setup
> valid contracts
From: Nico Williams [mailto:n...@cryptonector.com]
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 10:20:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > It's entirely possible to dual license contributions and everything. Why
> > are you making such aggressive statements about a, so far, apparently
> > good faith engagement?
>
>
David,
On 07/09/2018 02:52 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> Unfortunately, this does not mean anything until courts have upheld
> it. Were Red Hat to be taken over by people who didn't see things
> this way, it is a long way from clear that such a statement would be
> upheld in every court, which is
Hi,
On 2018-07-09 05:47:56 -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> Suppose I have my own patches, not yet contributed to PG, and that I'm
> using them in production. Can I use my patched version of PG with your
> functionality?
Yes. Given the proposal was to license the potentially encumbered code
under
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:29:08AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: David Fetter [mailto:da...@fetter.org]
> > We went out of our way to excise code that the PostgreSQL license
> > doesn't cover some years back. I think that was done for good
> > reasons, which obtain to this day. While
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:29:08AM +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > There are arguments made that TPL (and BSD, MIT etc) already includes an
> > implicit patent grant, but while a longstanding theory, it's to my
> > knowledge not legally been tested.
>
> When we find a reasonable consensus
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
