| From: | "John Hansen" <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Jeff Davis" <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ARC patent |
| Date: | 2005-01-19 07:43:48 |
| Message-ID: | 5066E5A966339E42AA04BA10BA706AE56234@rodrick.geeknet.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> ... not even certain whether an ARC replacement will be needed:
> we might be able to adapt the existing code to workaround the
> patent, the patent might not be granted, or IBM might grant
> us a license to use it. It's also worth emphasizing that this
How about contacting IBM to see where they stand on the issue...?
You never know,... We might get the licence and be able to
put the dusussion to rest!
... John
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-01-19 08:20:16 | Re: ARC patent |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-19 05:39:28 | Re: ARC patent |