On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 09:33:21AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 12 July 2018 at 09:10, Tsunakawa, Takayuki <
> tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > From: Nico Williams [mailto:nico@cryptonector.com]
> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:29:12AM +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > > > How can one make defensive use of his patent if he allows everyone to
> > > > use it royalty-free? Can he use his patent for cross-licensing
> > > > negotiation if some commercial database vendor accuses his company
> > > > that PostgreSQL unintentionally infringes that vendor's patent?
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_termination
> >
> > Thank you, his looks reasonable to give everyone the grant. Then, I
> > wonder if the community can accept patented code if the patent holder
> > grants this kind of license.
>
> Personally, I'd be in favour, but the core team has spoken here. I'm not
> privy to the discussion but the outcome seems firm.
Has the issue been considered in enough detail?
A thorough treatment of the issue would probably mean that PG should
have a contributor agreement, or at the very least the license that PG
uses should include generous royalty-free patent grants so as to force
contributors to make them. Of course, any time you add contributor
agreements you add friction to the contribution process, and at least
one-time legal costs for the core.
Also, what about patents that are placed in the public domain? Surely
code implementing those would not be rejected for involving patents...
I'm not sure that the widest grant with no-lawsuit defensive clauses
should be accepted, but it's not that far from the public domain case.
Even here there's legal costs: at least a one-time cost of hiring an IP
lawyer to write up patent grant language that the PG community would
insist on. It could be well worth it.
Nico
--
