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.
Although Nico is correct, I also think we need to consider what the community wants here. Historically, we have always explicitly avoided anything to do with patents to the point where some hackers won't even read white papers on patented methods. I do think there is a definite technological advantage for PostgreSQL if there was a license that core could accept that was patent friendly but frankly, I don't think that core or the community has the desire to work through the cost of doing so.
Exactly. There would be a ton of work to do, lawyers to involve (which inevitably means lots of fun work for me :-) ), uncertainty for forks, likely changes to a licence many of us hold dear, various potential risks to the project, both in the short and long term - and in return for what? One or more patches that we currently know nothing about, have no idea of the benefit of, that if posted now would likely not get any eyes on them at all precisely because they're covered by a patent.
tldr; it's a crap ton of work, risk and uncertainty for what might well be zero benefit at the moment.
