On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>> Jean-Paul Argudo wrote:
>>>> I really feel sad and sorry to read here it was really problematic for US part
>>>> of PostgreSQL project, I felt like the PostgreSQL project was more American
>>>> than International then, since American issues on that topic overrided others
>>>> arguments.
>>>
>>> I don't see this as an international vs. USA issue at all. If anything,
>>> I am embarrassed by the USA in this area.
>>
>> One thing to note ... with ppl like Fujitsu and Greenplum doing
>> "extensions" to PostgreSQL and re-releasing it, how many of those
>> extensions are patent'd? In Greenplum's case, I believe that they do
>> intend on having some patent'd stuff added to their code base, but it
>> won't carry over to ours ...
>>
>> Our goal should be (I think) to be "patent free" when we know about
>> patents, just like we did with IBM/ARC ... if we started to become
>> "anti-patents", though, how would that reflect on those like
>> Fujitsu/GreenPlum? In Fujitsu's case, they have definitely done *alot* to
>> advance some very large/key features in PostgreSQL, but do we cast a
>> shadow across the project by taking an 'anti-patent' stance when one of
>> our major contributors most probably has *several*?
>
> Good distinction. It is a lot easier to get agreement on being
> "patent-free" rather than "anti-patent".
*nod* Personally, I'm not 'anti-patent', I'm just against abuse of the
patent system ... and I think alot of the patents that have been going out
have shown to be sooooo vague as to be useless, but being approved anyway
:(
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
