Thread: Great
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39194883,00.htm -- Your PostgreSQL solutions provider, Command Prompt, Inc. 24x7 support - 1.800.492.2240, programming, and consulting Home of PostgreSQL Replicator, plPHP, plPerlNG and pgPHPToolkit http://www.commandprompt.com / http://www.postgresql.org
Josh, > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39194883,00.htm Hmmmm .... probably knew this would become news. Funny that Elein had a 2-page editorial on GB for a month, but this got picked up thanks to my posting on GrokLaw. Shows you who reads what .... Anyway, people, please let Simon & me handle contacts with Ingrid Marsten, we have a history with her. Thanks! --Josh -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 14:26 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Josh, > > > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39194883,00.htm > > Hmmmm .... probably knew this would become news. That's a good article. We made it news and it has been reported; PostgreSQL gets more press and everybody knows we're proactive and aren't beholden to other people's handouts. Best Regards, Simon Riggs
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39194883,00.htm I also wonder why we never contacted IBM...
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:19:13 +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> wrote: > >http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39194883,00.htm > > I also wonder why we never contacted IBM... It's in the archives.
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: >> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39194883,00.htm > > > I also wonder why we never contacted IBM... Because it isn't relevant. Regardless of IBMs decision to be good to OSS. It is better, when it is known to be patent using free. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend -- Your PostgreSQL solutions provider, Command Prompt, Inc. 24x7 support - 1.800.492.2240, programming, and consulting Home of PostgreSQL Replicator, plPHP, plPerlNG and pgPHPToolkit http://www.commandprompt.com / http://www.postgresql.org
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: >>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39194883,00.htm >> >> >> I also wonder why we never contacted IBM... > > Because it isn't relevant. Regardless of IBMs decision to be good to OSS. It > is better, when it is known to be patent using free. And, notice IBMs comment in the article that states that even IBM isn't sure what they would do in the circumstances we've detailed :( ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 22:52, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > >>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39194883,00.htm > >> > >> > >> I also wonder why we never contacted IBM... > > > > Because it isn't relevant. Regardless of IBMs decision to be good to OSS. It > > is better, when it is known to be patent using free. > > And, notice IBMs comment in the article that states that even IBM isn't > sure what they would do in the circumstances we've detailed :( > I don't think it is impossible to suggest that they might have publicly stated they would not enforce the patent against even commercial entities who made use of it. In all honestly ARC's commercial value at this point seems pretty limited having seen a real world implementation that was not terribly successful. I don't know if they have ever done that before, but other companies have done things like that. Had we contacted them privately it would have given them the chance to address this case, even if only off the record. I'll stand by cores decision here though since ARC vs. 2Q is not really a downgrade and I agree we're probably better off to have just side-stepped the whole thing, but I can certainly understand why some would be confused by how things were handled. Robert Treat -- Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
One issue that seems to have been overlooked is whether IBM could have made a prompt decision to grant (or restrict)
useof the patent to PostgreSQL (and downstream distributors, embedders, and users). At the time the issue was
discoveredin December, the patent application had been rejected and was within the window to resubmit with
modifications. I doubt whether IBM has a policy in place stating the path to follow to grant worldwide royalty free use
ofa piece of work that might be patented or not.
I imagine there is a person within IBM that would argue for granting access, but that person would fact a lengthy
processwith
- the IBM legal staff to create language granting access to something that might appear in the future
- the IBM marketing staff to find a way to claim credit and good press
- the IBM accounting staff to see whether the legal expense should be charged to marketing or engineering
All of these are valid questions from people that are looking out for IBM shareholders. They would have to answer them
all*before* a yes/no decision could be taken and communicated.
Lance
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Treat [mailto:xzilla@users.sourceforge.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 10:41 AM
To: Marc G. Fournier
Cc: Joshua D. Drake; Christopher Kings-Lynne;
pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Great
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 22:52, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39194883,00.htm
> >>
> >>
> >> I also wonder why we never contacted IBM...
> >
> > Because it isn't relevant. Regardless of IBMs decision to be good to OSS. It
> > is better, when it is known to be patent using free.
>
> And, notice IBMs comment in the article that states that even IBM isn't
> sure what they would do in the circumstances we've detailed :(
>
I don't think it is impossible to suggest that they might have publicly
stated they would not enforce the patent against even commercial
entities who made use of it. In all honestly ARC's commercial value at
this point seems pretty limited having seen a real world implementation
that was not terribly successful.
I don't know if they have ever done that before, but other companies
have done things like that. Had we contacted them privately it would
have given them the chance to address this case, even if only off the
record.
I'll stand by cores decision here though since ARC vs. 2Q is not really
a downgrade and I agree we're probably better off to have just
side-stepped the whole thing, but I can certainly understand why some
would be confused by how things were handled.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Robert, > I don't know if they have ever done that before, but other companies > have done things like that. Had we contacted them privately it would > have given them the chance to address this case, even if only off the > record. The problem is that, unless you personally have a friend on IBM's legal staff, there was *no way* for us to contact IBM lawyers quietly, off the record. Any contact we made would be official and start the IBM legal machinery moving. And, let me remind you, that while IBM's senior management has been a great friend to Open Source and our project, their DB2 divsion has been allowed to conduct a FUD campaign against PostgreSQL in an effort to encourage migrations. If we inquired at the wrong office based on our lack of information about IBM internal politics, the consequences could have been pretty bad. At the time Tom created the 2Q code, we didn't know when the IBM patent would be granted. It could have been any day, or even already granted and the public records' hadn't caught up. Without IBM contact, we would still have a "grace period" until IBM discovered our use of ARC and sent us a license-or-quit letter, which they would be unlikely to do quickly (if at all). If we contacted them and they decided *not* to license us the patent, or to license it under the GPL, then they would be bound to serve us *immediately* on patent grant. And then we would be scrambling to replace ARC and get our users to upgrade in a few days. Core spent several weeks discussing this and obtained legal advice (not named here because it was not formally retained) who agreed that replacing the algorithm was the only "risk-free" course. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 13:11, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Robert,
>
> > I don't know if they have ever done that before, but other companies
> > have done things like that. Had we contacted them privately it would
> > have given them the chance to address this case, even if only off the
> > record.
>
> The problem is that, unless you personally have a friend on IBM's legal staff,
> there was *no way* for us to contact IBM lawyers quietly, off the record.
> Any contact we made would be official and start the IBM legal machinery
> moving.
>
I find it hard to believe that no one in the community has the resources
to pull this off. Heck I know a couple of people who know people at IBM
that probably could have pointed me in the right direction. Barring
that I think some googling on IBM Patents for FLOSS announcements
probably would have turned up a name. As long as it was just one person
associated with the project contacting someone at IBM and not "our
lawyers" sending a letter to "their lawyers" them it certainly does not
have to require an official response from them.
> And, let me remind you, that while IBM's senior management has been a great
> friend to Open Source and our project, their DB2 divsion has been allowed to
> conduct a FUD campaign against PostgreSQL in an effort to encourage
> migrations. If we inquired at the wrong office based on our lack of
> information about IBM internal politics, the consequences could have been
> pretty bad.
>
> At the time Tom created the 2Q code, we didn't know when the IBM patent would
> be granted. It could have been any day, or even already granted and the
> public records' hadn't caught up. Without IBM contact, we would still have
> a "grace period" until IBM discovered our use of ARC and sent us a
> license-or-quit letter, which they would be unlikely to do quickly (if at
> all). If we contacted them and they decided *not* to license us the patent,
> or to license it under the GPL, then they would be bound to serve us
> *immediately* on patent grant. And then we would be scrambling to replace
> ARC and get our users to upgrade in a few days.
>
You forgot the part about them suing everyone who ever submitted a patch
to postgresql... several people pointed out that any overly aggressive
move against this community would have certainly generated ample bad
press that this strategy would have been foolhardy at best. There are
certainly a lot of different courses of action that can be taken without
jumping immediately to the endgame scenario.
> Core spent several weeks discussing this and obtained legal advice (not named
> here because it was not formally retained) who agreed that replacing the
> algorithm was the only "risk-free" course.
As I said, I stand by core's decision since avoiding the problem is
certainly a safer course. I think you're lawyer is flat-out wrong though
if they said what we have done is "risk-free", it's just "risk-reduced".
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote: > I find it hard to believe that no one in the community has the > resources to pull this off. Heck I know a couple of people who know > people at IBM that probably could have pointed me in the right > direction. The only acceptable solutions for this issue would have been IBM withdrawing the patent application or IBM making a legally binding deposition that they grant a no-strings-attached patent license to everyone. Neither of these things have the remotest chance of happening. Neither IBM making this the 501st patent available for free use by the open-source community nor IBM granting a patent license to the PostgreSQL project nor IBM saying "don't worry about it" would have been acceptable. So removing the code was the reasonable way to resolve this on our part. Additionally, this sends out a message that the PostgreSQL project is not interested in compromising on the software patent issue. I'm very happy to send that message, and I wish that article would get syndicated to all the corners of the web. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
On Thursday 14 April 2005 15:56, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > I find it hard to believe that no one in the community has the
> > resources to pull this off. Heck I know a couple of people who know
> > people at IBM that probably could have pointed me in the right
> > direction.
>
> The only acceptable solutions for this issue would have been IBM
> withdrawing the patent application or IBM making a legally binding
> deposition that they grant a no-strings-attached patent license to
> everyone. Neither of these things have the remotest chance of
> happening. Neither IBM making this the 501st patent available for free
> use by the open-source community nor IBM granting a patent license to
> the PostgreSQL project nor IBM saying "don't worry about it" would have
> been acceptable. So removing the code was the reasonable way to
> resolve this on our part.
>
I believe there is at least the chance that IBM would have stated publicly
they had no intention of enforcing the patent. Again, I don't know if they
have done that before, but other companies have, and the good will gained
from such a gesture to the open source community would have been huge.
> Additionally, this sends out a message that the PostgreSQL project is
> not interested in compromising on the software patent issue. I'm very
> happy to send that message, and I wish that article would get
> syndicated to all the corners of the web.
>
I think it's good press for us too, but given that we couldn't even muster
enough support to put the no patents banner on the web site I think your
over-reaching here a bit.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote: > On Thursday 14 April 2005 15:56, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Robert Treat wrote: > > > I find it hard to believe that no one in the community has the > > > resources to pull this off. Heck I know a couple of people who know > > > people at IBM that probably could have pointed me in the right > > > direction. > > > > The only acceptable solutions for this issue would have been IBM > > withdrawing the patent application or IBM making a legally binding > > deposition that they grant a no-strings-attached patent license to > > everyone. Neither of these things have the remotest chance of > > happening. Neither IBM making this the 501st patent available for free > > use by the open-source community nor IBM granting a patent license to > > the PostgreSQL project nor IBM saying "don't worry about it" would have > > been acceptable. So removing the code was the reasonable way to > > resolve this on our part. > > > > I believe there is at least the chance that IBM would have stated publicly > they had no intention of enforcing the patent. Again, I don't know if they > have done that before, but other companies have, and the good will gained > from such a gesture to the open source community would have been huge. IBM saying they will not enforce the patent isn't enough. I think Amazon said that about their business process (a.k.a. silly) patents, then went on to enforce them. We would need some legal document that applied to us and companies that make commercial products based on PostgreSQL, and that was not going to happen in a timeframe we were comfortable with. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
On Apr 18, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Robert Treat wrote: >> On Thursday 14 April 2005 15:56, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> >> I believe there is at least the chance that IBM would have stated >> publicly >> they had no intention of enforcing the patent. Again, I don't know >> if they >> have done that before, but other companies have, and the good will >> gained >> from such a gesture to the open source community would have been huge. > > IBM saying they will not enforce the patent isn't enough. I think > Amazon said that about their business process (a.k.a. silly) patents, > then went on to enforce them. > > We would need some legal document that applied to us and companies that > make commercial products based on PostgreSQL, and that was not going to > happen in a timeframe we were comfortable with. Exactly. I'm a big proponent of BSD and the open licensing stance that projects like PostgreSQL and OpenBSD emphasize. If you don't guarantee the freedoms of your users, you leave them liable to the whims of corporations who answer to their shareholders first and foremost. If it wasn't for OpenBSD saying *NO* to Cisco's VRRP "open" patent, we wouldn't be blessed with CARP. If it wasn't for the PostgreSQL developers saying *NO* to ARC, who knows when or how IBM might have flexed their law team. -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net