On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:59:20AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-07-23 16:32:55 +0200, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 06:31:14AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On July 23, 2018 6:25:42 AM PDT, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > > >Notice this makes no mention of what happens to the patents if the
> > > >company goes bankrupt. My guess is that in such a situation the
> > > >company
> > > >would have no control over who buys the patents or how they are used.
> > >
> > > It explicitly says irrevocable and successors. Why seems squarely
> > > aimed at your concern. Bankruptcy wouldn't just invalidate that.
> >
> > Until this has been upheld in court, it's just a vague idea.
>
> To my knowledge this has long been settled. Which makes a lot of sense,
> because this is relevant *far* beyond just open source. FWIW, in the US
> it's explicit law, see https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/365
> subclause (n). Anyway, should we decide that this would be a good idea
> as a policy matter, we'd *OBVIOUSLY* have to check in with lawyers to
> see whether our understanding is correct. But that doesn't mean we
> should just assume it's impossible without any sort of actual
> understanding.
You are saying that Red Hat's promise is part of the contract when they
contributed that code --- I guess that interpretation is possible, but
again, I am not sure.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
