On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 08:20:53AM +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: Nico Williams [mailto:nico@cryptonector.com]
> > On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 10:20:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > It's entirely possible to dual license contributions and everything. Why
> > > are you making such aggressive statements about a, so far, apparently
> > > good faith engagement?
> >
> > One problem is that many contributors would not want to be tainted by
> > knowledge of the patents in question (since that leads to triple
> > damages).
> >
> > How would you protect contributors and core developers from tainting?
>
> IIUC, you are concerned about the possibility that PG developers would
> read the patent document (not the PG source code), and unconsciously
> use the patented algorithm for other software that's not related to
> PostgreSQL. That would only be helped by not reading the patent
> document... BTW, are you relieved the current PostgreSQL doesn't
> contain any patented code? As far as I know, PostgreSQL development
> process doesn't have a step to check patent and copyright
> infringement.
You're proposing to include code that implements patented ideas with a
suitable patent grant. I would be free to not read the patent, but what
if the code or documents mention the relevant patented algorithms?
If I come across something like this in the PG source code:
/* The following is covered by patents US#... and so on */
now what?
I could choose not to read it. But what if I have to touch that code in
order to implement an unrelated feature due to some required refactoring
of internal interfaces used by your code? Now I have to read it, and
now I'm tainted, or I must choose to abandon my project.
That is a heavy burden on the community. The community may want to
extract a suitable patent grant to make that burden lighter.
> > One possible answer is that you wouldn't. But that might reduce the
> > size of the community, or lead to a fork.
>
> Yes, that's one unfortunate future, which I don't want to happen of
> course. I believe PostgreSQL should accept patent for further
> evolution, because PostgreSQL is now a popular, influential software
> that many organizations want to join.
I don't speak for the PG community, nor the core developers. Speaking
for myself only, I hope that you can get, and PG accepts only, the
widest possible royalty-free patent grant to the community, allowing
others to not be constrained in making derivatives of PG.
My advice is to write up a patent grant that allows all to use the
relevant patents royalty-free with a no-lawsuit covenant. I.e., make
only defensive use of your patents.
Nico
--
