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".
--
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
