|From:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|To:||Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>|
|Subject:||Re: Patent warning about the Greenplum source code|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
I don't really want to discuss patent issues publically.
On 2015-10-30 04:47:35 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> However, while the license defines and uses "Derivative Works", it does
> not mention that in the patent grant clause. I assume this means that
> patent grants do not apply to derived works, meaning if code or ideas
> were moved from Greenplum to Postgres (which is not Apache 2.0
> licensed), it would not have a patent grant. I talked to Greenplum staff
> about this a few months ago and they did not dispute my analysis.
The easiest thing would be to dual-licensce the code such contributions
to postgres. That sounds quite possible to me.
> Therefore, I caution people from viewing the Greenplum source code as
> you might see patented ideas that could be later implemented in
> Postgres, opening Postgres up to increased patent violation problems. I
> am also concerned about existing community members who work for
> Pivotal/Greenplum and therefore are required to view the patented source
Issues around this are much larger than patents. Any contribution done
under employment has such risks. That's why the kernel has the
Check the section about signed-off-by in
|Next Message||Bruce Momjian||2015-10-30 09:03:13||Re: Patent warning about the Greenplum source code|
|Previous Message||Bruce Momjian||2015-10-30 08:47:35||Patent warning about the Greenplum source code|