| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, 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 23:56:35 |
| Message-ID: | 1106006195.14384.223.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 10:15 +1100, Neil Conway wrote:
> 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.
Agreed.
> > 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.
>
Agreed.
--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2005-01-18 00:02:30 | Re: ARC patent |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-01-17 23:54:03 | Re: ARC patent |