|From:||"Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>|
|To:||'Chris Travers' <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com>|
|Subject:||RE: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents?|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
From: Chris Travers [mailto:chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)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 that library out, and you could not use your patents
> or copyrights to stop them. As such, a patent license would probably be
> very similar from a business perspective to a global public grant even though
> the two strike me as something which might not offer protection in the case
> of a clean-room implementation.
> I certainly wouldn't be opposed to accepting patents where a license was
> granted to the PostgreSQL Global Developer Group and the community as a
> whole to make full use of the patents in any way covered by the copyright
> license of PostgreSQL (i.e where any use that involves utilizing the
> copyright license for PostgreSQL extends to the patents in question). But
> I am not sure that a business case would be able to be made for releasing
> any patents under such a license since it means that for anyone else, using
> the patents even in commercial software becomes trivial and enforcement
> would become very difficult indeed.
It looks like you are right in that we can't restrict the use of patents in PostgreSQL code to PostgreSQL-based software... Re-reading Apache License 2.0, it doesn't have any restriction either. But, like Apache License, I think the patents can be useful to prevent litigation.
|Next Message||Michael Paquier||2018-07-30 07:59:16||Re: Temporary tables prevent autovacuum, leading to XID wraparound|
|Previous Message||Andrey Borodin||2018-07-30 05:50:29||Re: Covering GiST indexes|