Re: specificity of claims

From: Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: specificity of claims
Date: 2008-10-25 03:49:25
Message-ID: 49029745.7010507@cheapcomplexdevices.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

>>> patent...troll...

Shouldn't the project get a legal opinion on how to handle patent
issues on the lists?

If this project does have access to limited legal resources IMHO
it'd be a worthwhile use of those resources to get an educated
opinion of when, if, and how patent issues should be raised on both
the public (general, hackers) and more private (core) lists.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2008-10-26 03:49:16 Re: specificity of claims
Previous Message Andrew Sullivan 2008-10-24 17:44:18 Re: specificity of claims (was: SEPostgres - on track?for 8.4?)