Re: [HACKERS] Patent warning about the Greenplum source code

On 3 November 2015 at 08:12, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I am posting this at the request of Josh Berkus, who wanted > clarification on some issues. FYI, I have been speaking in this thread > as a community member, and not as a member of core, and made some > mistakes in my

Re: [HACKERS] Patent warning about the Greenplum source code

On 1 November 2015 at 07:47, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 01:27:13AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:47:35AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Therefore, I caution people from viewing the Greenplum source code as > > > you might see

Re: [HACKERS] Patent warning about the Greenplum source code

On 11/02/2015 02:41 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: On 1 November 2015 at 07:47, Bruce Momjian > wrote: On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 01:27:13AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:47:35AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Therefore, I

Re: [HACKERS] Patent warning about the Greenplum source code

On 11/01/2015 06:37 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Let me add that this is more than hypothetical. While we don't think > any of these companies would sue the community for patent infringement, > they could sue users, and the company could be bought by a sinister > company that could enforce those

Re: [HACKERS] Patent warning about the Greenplum source code

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:36:48AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > but when Oracle bought Sun, more people > > were concerned. Someone could buy the company _just_ to sue for patent > > infringement --- happens all the time. > > Not as often as you'd think, and it hasn't happened in the database >

Re: [HACKERS] Patent warning about the Greenplum source code

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:47:35AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Therefore, I caution people from viewing the Greenplum source code as > you might see patented ideas that could be later implemented in > Postgres, opening Postgres up to increased patent violation problems. I > am also concerned

Re: [HACKERS] Patent warning about the Greenplum source code

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 01:27:13AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:47:35AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Therefore, I caution people from viewing the Greenplum source code as > > you might see patented ideas that could be later implemented in > > Postgres, opening

Re: [HACKERS] Patent warning about the Greenplum source code

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 12:12:48PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > Do let me point out that *code* isn't patented. *techniques* are. So > those techniques are patented whether or not you read the code. It's > just that if you read the code, copy the technique directly, and put it > in Postgres,

Re: [HACKERS] Patent warning about the Greenplum source code

On 10/31/2015 11:47 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 01:27:13AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:47:35AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> Therefore, I caution people from viewing the Greenplum source code as >>> you might see patented ideas that could be

Re: [HACKERS] Patent warning about the Greenplum source code

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 09:56:48AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > I don't really want to discuss patent issues publically. While we don't want to discuss patented ideas, the patent terms are an imporant topic here. > On 2015-10-30 04:47:35 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > However, while

[HACKERS] Patent warning about the Greenplum source code

Some of you might have seen that the Greenplum database source code has been published: https://adtmag.com/articles/2015/10/28/greenplum-open-sourced.aspx under the Apache 2.0 license: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 The source code has known patents owned by

Re: [HACKERS] Patent warning about the Greenplum source code

Hi, I don't really want to discuss patent issues publically. On 2015-10-30 04:47:35 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > However, while the license defines and uses "Derivative Works", it does > not mention that in the patent grant clause. I assume this means that > patent grants do not apply to