On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 03:06:13PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 02:02:40PM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 01:12:19PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:27:49AM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> > > > Perhaps patent law [in some countries] requires contracts as opposed to
> > > > licenses?
> > >
> > > Yes, I really don't know. I have just seen enough "oh, we didn't think
> > > of that" to be cautious.
> >
> > So, is it FUD? The core needs paid-for legal advice, not speculation.
> >
> > I'm quite certain that a software license can make a patent grant to the
> > satisfaction of many open source communities, and almost certainly to
> > the satisfaction of the PG community. But it will take an IP lawyer to
> > review or write such a license.
>
> And is the payback worth it? Many don't think so.
Wouldn't that be something to decide on a case-by-case basis?
Recall, a contributor might have acquired a patent only for the purpose
of defensive use, and the patent might involve useful-to-PG ideas.
Moreover, if PG re-invents those ideas later it then risks exposure to
lawsuit anyways. Arguably, accepting suitably-wide patent grants serves
to protect PG from this risk! Is that FUD from me, or good advice?
You'll need a lawyer to decide.
The important thing is the legal language of the grant. This is why PG
needs legal advice.
Nico
--
