Re: [pgsql-www] Software Patents - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> On 4/22/05, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> wrote:
> > >> Is this a vote?  I agree with you on that it's a very important issue,
> > >> and that it deserves a lot more than a news item.
> > +1 Vote from me. I don't see a reason why the PostgreSQL community
> > should hide their opinion on swpats, esp. since it already did hit us.
> > Our position should be stated at least as prominent as /about/licence.
>
> Well, I am for any kind of statement that PostgreSQL is against
> Software patents.  It does not need to be a direct link to FFII or EFF.
>
> I think there should be a link/button "PostgreSQL's standpoint on
> software patents issue".  And under it there would be our page
> describing our problem with ARC patent, how we dealt with it
> and why.  Plus links to anti-patent organisations.
>
> We don't need to say explicitly that we are against software patents.
> It is sufficient to say that PostgreSQL as a project will avoid patents
> rather than seek contracts with patent-holders.  And that PostgreSQL
> Project will not try to issue patents since we feel that it is against
> BSD way of life.
...
> I think it would be feasible and most community members would agree upon
> something like this.  We don't say 'we will fight with patents to death', but we
> state 'we are avoiding patents as much as we can, we have no other choice'.

My personal opinion is that the patent office has clearly approved
trivial patents in both software and business processes (like the
one-click patent).  I think perhaps there should be no software /
business process patents, but I am not positive on that fact. (In fact,
there is the larger issue of whether there should be any patents at
all.)

Historically patents have protected small companies from having their
ideas stolen by larger companies.  That has worked sometimes, and other
times patents have been abused terribly, and this is not the first time
patents have been abused.

From an open source perspective, I think patents are the most effective
way for proprietary companies to attack open source projects, and I am
shocked that this has not happened already.  I am confused why it hasn't
happened as much yet.  (I have asked folks at conferences and no one
seems to know the answer.)  Perhaps it is because the enforcement of
patents is too difficult, perhaps they realize open source is global and
therefore can avoid enforcement, perhaps it the fear of bad public
relations, or perhaps they are waiting for Europe to approve patents.
(SCO vs. Linux is a copyright case and is easier to enforce.)

So, I am basically saying that there is a clear link between patents and
possible attacks on our project.

However, these are my personal opinions, and from a community
perspective I feel we should have web site information that is approved
by a large majority of our community.  Looking at the replies to this
thread, I am not sure we have reached that large majority yet.

By posting a news item, someone's email is attached to it and it doesn't
need the same majority as a permanent statement would need.

And what statement are you going to make that is going to get a large
majority vote?

    o  patents are bad
    o  software patents are bad
    o  trivial software patents are bad

And then you have the "sky is falling" groups that we (I think) don't
want to be associated with.  The bottom line is that this topic is
pretty complex, and isn't as easy to just say "no software patents"
without understanding the reason for patents and the ramifications of
eliminating them.  It is sort of like the GNU simple-sounding "software
should be free" but the ramifications (GPL) have their own complexities.

For the ARC case, I don't think most people consider the pending patent
trivial, and I bet some community members think it is OK for IBM to have
patented that idea.  I might agree with that or not, but I think some
might hold that opinion.

Then there is the issue of whether any complex piece of software can be
developed and infringe no patents, or be done without a team of lawyers
to check all patents for possible violations.

The bottom line is that for permanent content, you are going to have to
get super-majority agreement on all these issues in your statement, or
keep it narrow enough so you can get such a majority.

(Everytime I email about patents I am careful because I suspect my words
might be used against me some day in court, so I do try to avoid the
subject in public discourse if possible.)

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073