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

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents?
Date: 2018-07-26 19:51:02
Message-ID: 20180726195102.er4buj7vpcgnyk2m@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018-07-26 09:51:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com> writes:
> > What about adding an extra line to the license that indicates that the
> > copyright owners also give all patent licenses which are both in their
> > power to grant and also needed for exercise of the copyright license and
> > require that new code contributions use this license with the extra clause.
>
> There's been an awful lot of discussion in this thread that supposes that
> we can change the Postgres license. Let me just point out very clearly
> that no such thing is going to happen. There will be no changes, no
> additions, no alternate licenses, period. To change the license, we'd
> need the agreement of all current and past contributors, which is a
> completely impractical thing even if there were fairly wide consensus
> that a particular change is a good idea. Which there isn't.

That's obviously not going to happen. But there is the less crazy
alternative of dual licensing new contributions going forward, with a
licence that's TPL compatible.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2018-07-26 19:59:22 Re: Locking B-tree leafs immediately in exclusive mode
Previous Message Robert Haas 2018-07-26 19:50:48 Re: print_path is missing GatherMerge and CustomScan support