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

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 8:12 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
wrote:

> On 07/23/2018 12:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> So, is it FUD? The core needs paid-for legal advice, not speculation.
>>>
>>> I'm quite certain that a software license can make a patent grant to the
>>> satisfaction of many open source communities, and almost certainly to
>>> the satisfaction of the PG community. But it will take an IP lawyer to
>>> review or write such a license.
>>>
>> And is the payback worth it? Many don't think so.
>>
>
> Although Nico is correct, I also think we need to consider what the
> community wants here. Historically, we have always explicitly avoided
> anything to do with patents to the point where some hackers won't even read
> white papers on patented methods. I do think there is a definite
> technological advantage for PostgreSQL if there was a license that core
> could accept that was patent friendly but frankly, I don't think that core
> or the community has the desire to work through the cost of doing so.

Exactly. There would be a ton of work to do, lawyers to involve (which
inevitably means lots of fun work for me :-) ), uncertainty for forks,
likely changes to a licence many of us hold dear, various potential risks
to the project, both in the short and long term - and in return for what?
One or more patches that we currently know nothing about, have no idea of
the benefit of, that if posted now would likely not get any eyes on them at
all precisely because they're covered by a patent.

tldr; it's a crap ton of work, risk and uncertainty for what might well be
zero benefit at the moment.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company