Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Great

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Great
Date: 2005-04-14 19:56:12
Message-ID: 200504142156.12771.peter_e@gmx.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
Robert Treat wrote:
> I find it hard to believe that no one in the community has the
> resources to pull this off. Heck I know a couple of people who know
> people at IBM that probably could have pointed me in the right
> direction.

The only acceptable solutions for this issue would have been IBM 
withdrawing the patent application or IBM making a legally binding 
deposition that they grant a no-strings-attached patent license to 
everyone.  Neither of these things have the remotest chance of 
happening.  Neither IBM making this the 501st patent available for free 
use by the open-source community nor IBM granting a patent license to 
the PostgreSQL project nor IBM saying "don't worry about it" would have 
been acceptable.  So removing the code was the reasonable way to 
resolve this on our part.

Additionally, this sends out a message that the PostgreSQL project is 
not interested in compromising on the software patent issue.  I'm very 
happy to send that message, and I wish that article would get 
syndicated to all the corners of the web.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

  • Re: Great at 2005-04-14 18:55:12 from Robert Treat

Responses

  • Re: Great at 2005-04-14 23:53:58 from Robert Treat

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Robert TreatDate: 2005-04-14 23:53:58
Subject: Re: Great
Previous:From: Robert TreatDate: 2005-04-14 18:55:12
Subject: Re: Great

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group