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

On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 12:42:49PM +0200, Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> ARC patent is a good sample to indirectly say what we all agree on:
>  * PostgreSQL will not use patented algorithms.  Only case when we
> will consider using patents is when they are in accord with BSD
> spirit.
>  * PostgreSQL will not patent algorithms.  Since we are BSD projects,
> we are doing it for the people.  If we create something new, we would
> like others to follow, and we would like be able to follow good ideas
> from others as well.
>  * PostgreSQL will not try to make deals with patent holders (like
> IBM).  We think that while they may be friendly towards us, they may
> be not towards companies relicensing our software (commercialized
> PostgreSQL versions), and we feel it should not be so.  We don't do it
> because we don't like patent holders, it is because we care about
> PostgreSQL users.
>  * PostgreSQL will not use known-patented ideas, for the reasons
> above.  So even if some ideas are great and well documented we cannot
> use them, for the sake of PostgreSQL's and PostgreSQL-related
> companies legal safety.
>
> 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'.
>
>    Regards,
>       Dawid

Stepping in the middle here, I'd like to point out that PostgreSQL
is really good at what it does because it has a primary focus
of an excellent database server.

I believe what Dawid wrote, outlining our position by showing
what action we take, will take and have taken on
using (or rather not using) software patents is a very strong
message.

By focussing on what *we* do and don't do, we do not deviate from
our primary purpose of excellent software.  We don't join other
organizations, but do not alienate them either.  We speak our
general aversion to software patents by saying what we do about
them.

I think staying focussed on what we do is the key for getting agreement
on choosing the right action here.  A "License and Patent" link
from the main page to an explanation of the BSD license and publicly
outlining our policies with regards to software patents is very pointed and strong.

Historical note...one of the obvious reasons for the bsd patents was
so that any company could take the university code and re-sell it.
A perq for the professors and grad students as much as an altruistic
ideal.

--elein