On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 04:28:51PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:
> > Clean room design addresses copyright-related issues, not patents.
>
> Correct. It's important folks realise that!
Indeed.
It's also important to know, when reading PG source code or docs, that
there are no descriptions of patented algorithms nor references to
unexpired patents in PG code / docs, unless those have the widest
possible grant (as described before and below), are in the public
domain, or are expired. Updating the PG license to make such patent
grants (thus committing contributors to making them too) would be the
best and simplest way to gain the reader's confidence that PG is not
tainting them.
Note that it's OK to *accidentally* implement patented algorithms as
long as the author of the contribution didn't know about. There's no
trebble damages in that case, and no tainting of others, plus,
contributors and code reviewers/committers can't be expected to do
patent searches for each contribution.
IMO PG should have:
- a license that grants patent rights as described before
(royalty-free, non-exclusive, transferrable, irrevocable or revocable
only where a relevant patent holder is sued, and then revocable only
for the user doing the suing)
- an employer contributor agreement whereby an individual contributor's
employer's director agrees to allow PG-relevent contributions (by the
contributor) to PG under the PG license (including patent grant
text), and committing the contributor to disclose all non-expired
patents embodied in the contribution
- an individual contributor agreement whereby an individual contributor
commits to following the PG code of conduct (which should include
text about patents and copyrights), to make only PG-relevant
contributions that the individual's employer (if they have one)
permits, and to place the contributions under the PG license
(including patent grant text), and so on
Nico
--
