| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ARC patent |
| Date: | 2005-01-17 23:15:04 |
| Message-ID: | 1106003704.22946.89.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 12:30 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> The biggest problem is going to be that if we release 8 with
> the patented stuff, then for a minimum of 3 years there will
> be liability for anyone running 8.
>
> We still have people running 7.1 and once you get something
> into production you typically don't just "change" it.
Keep in mind that it would be conceivable to ship an 8.0.x release which
replaces ARC with another algorithm. That would be a somewhat
non-trivial change, but there's no reason we need to wait for a major
release (i.e. 8.1 or 8.2) to replace ARC.
> Basically I think the fact that we are even considering leaving
> the knowingly infringing code in 8 is presenting a horrible
> face to the community.
I agree with Tom -- this shouldn't be an impediment to releasing 8.0,
but it definitely warrants attention in the future.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-01-17 23:22:11 | Re: ARC patent |
| Previous Message | Kevin Brown | 2005-01-17 22:59:12 | Re: ARC patent |