From: | Tommi Maekitalo <t(dot)maekitalo(at)epgmbh(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: IBM patent |
Date: | 2005-01-31 08:59:09 |
Message-ID: | 200501310959.09099.t.maekitalo@epgmbh.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Am Samstag, 29. Januar 2005 23:32 schrieb Marc G. Fournier:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Christopher Browne wrote:
> > Actually, the latter isn't so.
> >
> > If Mammoth or Pervasive or such release their own release of
> > PostgreSQL, nothing has historically mandated that they make that
> > release available under the BSD license.
> >
> > Presumably acceptance of the patent would change that.
> >
> > You and I might not have individual objections to this situation, but
> > one or another of the companies putting together PostgreSQL releases
> > very well might.
>
> But, there is nothing stop'ng them from replacing the ARC code with their
> own variant though ...
>
And what if there are many more patented parts? If someone wants to have a
patent-free variant, he has to replace big parts of postgresql? That wouldn't
be good for postgresql. If there is a patent-problem, postgresql has to
remove it.
What I think about is the legal implications. Sorry, but I don't know BSD very
well. Does BSD really allow to remove this BSD-license and put his own, or
does BSD allow to release commercial closed-source-variants under the
BSD-license?
Tommi
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Manfred Koizar | 2005-01-31 11:08:41 | Re: Group-count estimation statistics |
Previous Message | Dmitry Konnov | 2005-01-31 07:45:51 | win32. Please help me to compile PostGre |