Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents?

On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 10:20:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
> On 2018-07-07 19:12:58 +0200, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 01:15:15AM +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > > I believe that accepting patented code from companies would be
> > > practically more useful for PostgreSQL enhancement and growth.
> > > PostgreSQL is now a mature software, and it can be more
> > > corporate-friendly like other software under Apache License.
> >
> > The Apache license is "friendly" to the patent holder, not so much to
> > the aspiring maker of derivative proprietary software.
>
> I don't think that's a true characterization. There's no meaningful
> reduction in freedoms to make derivative proprietary software in of
> apache 2 vs BSD/MIT like licenses. It gives you additional rights. Are
> you talking about the retaliatory clause? If so, that only cancel the
> patent license, not the entire license.

There is according to IP attorneys I've spoken to on the matter, and
this is frequently reflected in the open source policies companies
have. For liberal licenses, which are enumerated and do not include
the Apache license, the process is, as a rule, brief and perfunctory.
For all other licenses, the process ranges from cumbersome to not
worth doing.

> > We went with a very liberal license from the outset for what we
> > believed were good reasons, and that's served us well over the
> > decades. If you're proposing a change of this magnitude, it's
> > going to have to be a lot more convincing than, "it would be
> > convenient for my company this year."
>
> It's entirely possible to dual license contributions and everything.
> Why are you making such aggressive statements about a, so far,
> apparently good faith engagement?

We went out of our way to excise code that the PostgreSQL license
doesn't cover some years back. I think that was done for good reasons,
which obtain to this day. While the introduction of code someone else
ultimately owns may seem harmless or even beneficial today, owners
change, as do their motivations. When we have nothing of this kind in
the project, we expose our future users to none of that risk.

Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate