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

From: Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents?
Date: 2018-07-13 07:07:16
Message-ID: CAN-RpxAjUsa=7KU-1gZwP+9wz5Tk77z+i7V+0c15GwgxMyWxrA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 9:01 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 2018-07-07 20:51:56 +0200, David Fetter wrote:
> > 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.
>
> This is pure FUD. Obviously potential results of dual licensing depends
> on the license chosen. None of what you describe has anything to do with
> potential pieces of dual PG License / Apache 2.0 licensed code in PG, or
> anything similar. You could at any time choose to only use /
> redistribute postgres, including derivatives, under the rights either
> license permits.
>
> I think there's fair arguments to be made that we do not want to go fo
> for dual licensing with apache 2.0. Biggest among them that the current
> situation is the established practice. But let's have the arguments be
> real, not FUD.
>

First, generally, dual licensing is used to assert proprietary rights and
that's actually the issue here (the scope of the patent-holder's rights)
and the fact that it would change the future code use in some not very nice
ways. The major exception I know of is the Perl situation where you have
this GPL v2/Artistic License release but I am not entirely sure the
historical reasons for this.

The problem here is the scope of a patent right is different here and this
would effectively mean the Apache License is the real license of the
product.

I assume we agree that the PostgreSQL license plus a patent encumbrance
would be the same as the scope of the patent license, not the scope of the
copyright license.

>
> Andres
>
>

--
Best Regards,
Chris Travers
Database Administrator

Tel: +49 162 9037 210 | Skype: einhverfr | www.adjust.com
Saarbrücker Straße 37a, 10405 Berlin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2018-07-13 07:11:45 Re: How to make partitioning scale better for larger numbers of partitions
Previous Message Ideriha, Takeshi 2018-07-13 07:03:43 RE: Global shared meta cache