Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Oracle indemnifies PostgreSQL on its patents

From: "Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Oracle indemnifies PostgreSQL on its patents
Date: 2007-04-01 19:30:14
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, April 1, 2007 01:32, Tom Lane wrote:

> The idea of OIN is to have a large patent pool that can be
> counter-asserted against anyone who doesn't want to play nice.
> Mutual assured destruction in the patent sphere, if you will.

And from the participants' point of view, I suppose the big attraction
must be that they do away with a threat to their patents.  If you have a
patent that matches what some open project (not worth suing) has been
doing for the past few years, then anyone else you might want to sue about
the patent could point to that project and say "if you have a valid
patent, why didn't you say something when they infringed it?"


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Mark DilgerDate: 2007-04-01 19:39:54
Subject: Re: Bug in UTF8-Validation Code?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-04-01 19:08:28
Subject: Re: Last minute mini-proposal (I know, Iknow)forPQexecf()

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group