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

On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 11:05:48AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-07-07 19:37:45 +0200, David Fetter wrote:
> > 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.
>
> You're talking about usage or contribution rules?

Usage rules, where "usage" is defined here to mean something that
might be modified. Sadly, these aren't usually published, so there's
not a great way to compare them even if you're an IP attorney so
inclined.

> > > > 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.
>
> I explicitly said *dual license*. And we definitely have code
> that's not just under the PG license, but compatibly licensed
> (mostly various BSD licenses). We even have a few pices (just
> build-time) of solely GPL licensed code (e.g. ax_pthread.m4).

In none of these cases is someone going to be able to claim
proprietary rights to the derived code.

As to "dual license," that's another legal thicket in which we've been
wise not to involve ourselves. "Dual licensing" is generally used to
assert proprietary rights followed immediately by a demand for
payment. This is a thing we don't want to do, and it's not a thing we
should be enabling others to do as part of our project. If they wish
to do that, they're welcome to do it without our imprimatur.

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