Thread: Software Patents
Hello, Originally I was against the idea of putting up a no software patents logo/banner/statement etc... on the website. After recent events within Command Prompt, including some expensive legal fees to convince certain customers that there is not a chance in the world that we would sign a indemnification agreement that included patents in the definition, I have changed my mind. I would like to propose that we put a no software patents logo up. Command Prompt would also follow suit, and it would be great if the other companies such as Greenplum, SRA, PgSQL, Inc. etc, all did the same. Kind of like the PostgreSQL patent-free ring ;) Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc., Your PostgreSQL solutions company. 503-667-4564 Custom programming, 24x7 support, managed services, and hosting Open Source Authors: plPHP, pgManage, Co-Authors: plPerlNG Reliable replication, Mammoth Replicator - http://www.commandprompt.com/
People: > Originally I was against the idea of putting up a no software patents > logo/banner/statement etc... on the website. Well, I think everyone knows where I stand on this .... -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > People: > > > Originally I was against the idea of putting up a no software patents > > logo/banner/statement etc... on the website. > > Well, I think everyone knows where I stand on this .... Uh, I forgot. -- 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
but we also > have to deal with the world we live in. (Hey, *I* wrote the first PRINT > statement. You all owe me money.) Actually that was me, pay up. Joshua D. Drake
Bruce, > > Well, I think everyone knows where I stand on this .... > > Uh, I forgot. http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=2005041120232361&title=How%20IBM%27s%20patent%20application%20disrupted%20PostgreSQL&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=299028#c299082 http://www.osdir.com/Article5033.phtml For. We should have one. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > Bruce, > > > > Well, I think everyone knows where I stand on this .... > > > > Uh, I forgot. > > http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=2005041120232361&title=How%20IBM%27s%20patent%20application%20disrupted%20PostgreSQL&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=299028#c299082 > http://www.osdir.com/Article5033.phtml > > For. We should have one. OK, I googled for "Software Patents" and found this URL: http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ In English, on the first page, I see this text: If that happens, you will pay dearly. Europe's software industry will fall victim to unscrupulous extortioners. A cartel of large corporations will crush smaller competitors. Consequently, we will all pay more money for less good and less secure software. You personally, your household, your company, your government, all of us. You'll know when you get the bill. When someone breaks into your computer, reads your E-mails, and steals the password of your bank account. When your computer crashes every day. When spam doesn't stop. When prices go up and companies shut down. When people lose their jobs. The second paragraph is particularly strange to me. It has the ranting of a "the sky is falling" appeal, and I don't think our project wants to be associated with that. I think the best we can do is to put up a "News" item with a little text explaining that our project feels software patents are "bad for open source and the computer industry in general" and leave it at that. What I don't want to do is link to another site where we can be associated with whatever "rant" they are spewing out that day. (Funny the picutres at the top of the site are from LinuxTag last year, I think. I didn't go on the protest but saw it form outside my hotel window.) -- 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
Oh, btw, I realized that some of you may not know who "we" are...EnterpriseDB is a new company coming out with a PostgreSQL-based product on May 23. Our site will be up by May 2...also, look for a mention in the May edition of Business 2.0... Anyone who wishes to know more is welcome to contact me. andy -----Original Message----- From: Andy Astor Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:51 PM To: 'Joshua D. Drake'; pgsql-www@postgresql.org Cc: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org Subject: RE: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents We, for one (I guess it's not really one...), completely support this position, and will be posting an anti-patents policy on our web site. Having said that, we will also reserve the right -- as most companies do today -- to have patents that are for the exclusive purpose of defending ourselves against others' patent infringement suits. Fundamentally, we believe software patents are stupid and should be abolished, but we also have to deal with the world we live in. (Hey, *I* wrote the first PRINT statement. You all owe me money.) Andy Astor, President EnterpriseDB Corporation -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Joshua D. Drake Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:14 PM To: pgsql-www@postgresql.org Cc: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org Subject: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents Hello, Originally I was against the idea of putting up a no software patents logo/banner/statement etc... on the website. After recent events within Command Prompt, including some expensive legal fees to convince certain customers that there is not a chance in the world that we would sign a indemnification agreement that included patents in the definition, I have changed my mind. I would like to propose that we put a no software patents logo up. Command Prompt would also follow suit, and it would be great if the other companies such as Greenplum, SRA, PgSQL, Inc. etc, all did the same. Kind of like the PostgreSQL patent-free ring ;) Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc., Your PostgreSQL solutions company. 503-667-4564 Custom programming, 24x7 support, managed services, and hosting Open Source Authors: plPHP, pgManage, Co-Authors: plPerlNG Reliable replication, Mammoth Replicator - http://www.commandprompt.com/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
> > OK, I googled for "Software Patents" and found this URL: > > http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ > > In English, on the first page, I see this text: > > If that happens, you will pay dearly. Europe's software industry will > fall victim to unscrupulous extortioners. A cartel of large corporations > will crush smaller competitors. Consequently, we will all pay more money > for less good and less secure software. You personally, your household, > your company, your government, all of us. > > You'll know when you get the bill. When someone breaks into your > computer, reads your E-mails, and steals the password of your bank > account. When your computer crashes every day. When spam doesn't stop. > When prices go up and companies shut down. When people lose their jobs. Well I think both paragraphs are ridiculous. Phrases like: fall victim to unscrupulous extortioners. Eliminate their credibility. I am not suggesting we join some external movement. I am suggesting we create our own (in sense) to the PostgreSQL community. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > > OK, I googled for "Software Patents" and found this URL: > > > > http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ > > > > In English, on the first page, I see this text: > > > > If that happens, you will pay dearly. Europe's software industry will > > fall victim to unscrupulous extortioners. A cartel of large corporations > > will crush smaller competitors. Consequently, we will all pay more money > > for less good and less secure software. You personally, your household, > > your company, your government, all of us. > > > > You'll know when you get the bill. When someone breaks into your > > computer, reads your E-mails, and steals the password of your bank > > account. When your computer crashes every day. When spam doesn't stop. > > When prices go up and companies shut down. When people lose their jobs. > > Well I think both paragraphs are ridiculous. Phrases like: > > fall victim to unscrupulous extortioners. > > Eliminate their credibility. > > I am not suggesting we join some external movement. I am suggesting we > create our own (in sense) to the PostgreSQL community. OK, I suggest you write something up, just a few sentences, and post it to this list. Once you get OK, you can post it to the New web site and it will be approved. -- 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
>> >>Eliminate their credibility. >> >>I am not suggesting we join some external movement. I am suggesting we >>create our own (in sense) to the PostgreSQL community. > > > OK, I suggest you write something up, just a few sentences, and post it > to this list. Once you get OK, you can post it to the New web site and > it will be approved. You got it. >
>>I am not suggesting we join some external movement. I am suggesting we >>create our own (in sense) to the PostgreSQL community. > > > OK, I suggest you write something up, just a few sentences, and post it > to this list. Once you get OK, you can post it to the New web site and > it will be approved. But.... my original suggestion was that it is static. A news item goes away. I would prefer that it be a permanent link to a page on the website. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > >>I am not suggesting we join some external movement. I am suggesting we > >>create our own (in sense) to the PostgreSQL community. > > > > > > OK, I suggest you write something up, just a few sentences, and post it > > to this list. Once you get OK, you can post it to the New web site and > > it will be approved. > > But.... my original suggestion was that it is static. A news item goes > away. I would prefer that it be a permanent link to a page on the website. I think a News item is all we, as a group, are going to agree to at this point. -- 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
Bruce, > OK, I googled for "Software Patents" and found this URL: > > http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ We'd link to the FFII instead. They're a little more persuasive, and significantly more effective: http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/demands/0504/index.en.html -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > Bruce, > > > OK, I googled for "Software Patents" and found this URL: > > > > ????????http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ > > We'd link to the FFII instead. They're a little more persuasive, and > significantly more effective: > http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/demands/0504/index.en.html I read that page --- had no idea what they were talking about. -- 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
Josh Berkus wrote: > Bruce, > > >>OK, I googled for "Software Patents" and found this URL: >> >> http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ > > > We'd link to the FFII instead. They're a little more persuasive, and > significantly more effective: > http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/demands/0504/index.en.html What about: http://www.eff.org/patent/ >
Bruce, > I think a News item is all we, as a group, are going to agree to at this > point. Oh, I don't know. Who's opposing a web button? Is there really anyone in our active community who favors the introduction of software patents into Europe? -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > Bruce, > > > I think a News item is all we, as a group, are going to agree to at this > > point. > > Oh, I don't know. Who's opposing a web button? Is there really anyone in our Me. We didn't clean up the main PostgreSQL page to add someone else's button, especially some ranting organization. If you want to do it for your company, go ahead, it is your page, but the stuff we do have to be 100% or pretty close. > active community who favors the introduction of software patents into Europe? -- 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
Hi Josh and others; Metatron Technology Consulting will be happy to add such a banner too. The real issue I have is simply that I would want that we make sure we hash out the details and make sure that we are linking to a well-argued pages. Also, I would suggest that we don't make this hinge on the project site having the banner. Never underestimate the power of a few people who take the initiative and do a good job. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Hello, > > Originally I was against the idea of putting up a no software patents > logo/banner/statement etc... on the website. > > After recent events within Command Prompt, including some expensive > legal fees to convince certain customers that there is not a chance > in the world that we would sign a indemnification agreement that > included patents in the definition, I have changed my mind. > > I would like to propose that we put a no software patents logo up. > Command Prompt would also follow suit, and it would be great if the > other companies such as Greenplum, SRA, PgSQL, Inc. etc, all did the > same. > > Kind of like the PostgreSQL patent-free ring ;) > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > >
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > >>Bruce, >> >> >>>I think a News item is all we, as a group, are going to agree to at this >>>point. >> >>Oh, I don't know. Who's opposing a web button? Is there really anyone in our > > > Me. We didn't clean up the main PostgreSQL page to add someone else's > button, especially some ranting organization. If you want to do it for > your company, go ahead, it is your page, but the stuff we do have to be > 100% or pretty close. I am a little confused as to your argument Bruce. What is wrong with a button or link on www.postgresql.org that publicizes a page on www.postgresql.org the describes the communities stance on software patents. The page could also of course have links as reference to other legitimate anti-patent links (this is where I could see some tension). Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > >>active community who favors the introduction of software patents into Europe? > > >
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > > Bruce, > > > > > >>OK, I googled for "Software Patents" and found this URL: > >> > >> http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ > > > > > > We'd link to the FFII instead. They're a little more persuasive, and > > significantly more effective: > > http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/demands/0504/index.en.html > > What about: > > http://www.eff.org/patent/ I read their "About" http://www.eff.org/about/ Too political, this group is not just anti-patents and goes much farther than I think we can agree as a group. -- 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
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Josh Berkus wrote: > > > >>Bruce, > >> > >> > >>>I think a News item is all we, as a group, are going to agree to at this > >>>point. > >> > >>Oh, I don't know. Who's opposing a web button? Is there really anyone in our > > > > > > Me. We didn't clean up the main PostgreSQL page to add someone else's > > button, especially some ranting organization. If you want to do it for > > your company, go ahead, it is your page, but the stuff we do have to be > > 100% or pretty close. > > I am a little confused as to your argument Bruce. What is wrong with a > button or link on www.postgresql.org that publicizes a page on > www.postgresql.org the describes the communities stance on software patents. > > The page could also of course have links as reference to other > legitimate anti-patent links (this is where I could see some tension). The patent thing just isn't high-profile enough to warrant adding a permanent link at this point. Is is a question of priority, not that there is anything wrong with a link text. -- 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
> I read their "About" > > http://www.eff.org/about/ > > Too political, this group is not just anti-patents and goes much farther > than I think we can agree as a group. Uhmmm software patents are about as political as you can get ;). Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >
Just my $0.02 My company supports a wide range of open source software, and we develop some software ourselves. IANAL, this is not legal advice so much as it is advice on how to make the community comfortable with your patents. If your company really wants to have defensive patents, I would suggest a public license to them stating that anyone has permission to use them provided that they do not sue your company or any of your affiliates for patent infringement of any type. Talk this over with your lawyer and maybe look at the Apache 2.x license, or the IBM Public License (OpenAFS is released under this license) as an example of how this could be done. Many of us remember how companies have claimed that their patents were to be enforced defensively only until they decided that they might be able to gain competitive advantage by suing other companies over them. A pledge of non-enforcement is worth very little to our community. I license on condition of non-enforcement of one's own patents, otoh may be more helpful. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting Andy Astor wrote: >Oh, btw, I realized that some of you may not know who "we" >are...EnterpriseDB is a new company coming out with a PostgreSQL-based >product on May 23. Our site will be up by May 2...also, look for a >mention in the May edition of Business 2.0... > >Anyone who wishes to know more is welcome to contact me. > >andy > >-----Original Message----- >From: Andy Astor >Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:51 PM >To: 'Joshua D. Drake'; pgsql-www@postgresql.org >Cc: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org >Subject: RE: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents > >We, for one (I guess it's not really one...), completely support this >position, and will be posting an anti-patents policy on our web site. >Having said that, we will also reserve the right -- as most companies do >today -- to have patents that are for the exclusive purpose of defending >ourselves against others' patent infringement suits. Fundamentally, we >believe software patents are stupid and should be abolished, but we also >have to deal with the world we live in. (Hey, *I* wrote the first PRINT >statement. You all owe me money.) > >Andy Astor, President >EnterpriseDB Corporation > >-----Original Message----- >From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org >[mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Joshua D. >Drake >Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:14 PM >To: pgsql-www@postgresql.org >Cc: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org >Subject: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents > >Hello, > >Originally I was against the idea of putting up a no software patents >logo/banner/statement etc... on the website. > >After recent events within Command Prompt, including some expensive >legal fees to convince certain customers that there is not a chance >in the world that we would sign a indemnification agreement that >included patents in the definition, I have changed my mind. > >I would like to propose that we put a no software patents logo up. >Command Prompt would also follow suit, and it would be great if the >other companies such as Greenplum, SRA, PgSQL, Inc. etc, all did the >same. > >Kind of like the PostgreSQL patent-free ring ;) > >Sincerely, > >Joshua D. Drake > > > >
> > The patent thing just isn't high-profile enough to warrant adding a > permanent link at this point. Is is a question of priority, not that > there is anything wrong with a link text. I hope that most in the PostgreSQL community disagree with you. Software patents are likely the most very troubling. They are potentially crippling to the OSS community. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake Command Prompt, Inc. >
Bruce, > The patent thing just isn't high-profile enough to warrant adding a > permanent link at this point. Is is a question of priority, not that > there is anything wrong with a link text. Isn't high-profile enough? What would be high-profile enough, then? I know you've been speaking at a lot of tech conventions, Bruce, but have you been listening at them? -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > Bruce, > > > The patent thing just isn't high-profile enough to warrant adding a > > permanent link at this point. ?Is is a question of priority, not that > > there is anything wrong with a link text. > > Isn't high-profile enough? What would be high-profile enough, then? > > I know you've been speaking at a lot of tech conventions, Bruce, but have you > been listening at them? The fact this discussion has come up so rarely before indicates it is not a major issue for the community. As I said, come up with some wording that everyone can agree to and let's at least make a new item and see how it goes. I personally know the patent system is a mess, but it is not an overriding issue in my work with PostgreSQL. -- 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
> The fact this discussion has come up so rarely before indicates it is > not a major issue for the community. > > As I said, come up with some wording that everyone can agree to and > let's at least make a new item and see how it goes. Well my vote is for more of a sledgehammer than a feather in this regard. What does everyone else think is the real question. > > I personally know the patent system is a mess, but it is not an > overriding issue in my work with PostgreSQL. Your work with PostgreSQL (AFAIK) wouldn't run into the problem. People like Berkus, myself, EnterpriseDB, Greenplumn, SRA (Yes I know they employ you), PgSQL, Inc., are who are going to run into the problem. All due respect but perhaps it is worth considering the issue as a total community versus just how it affects you. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > I personally know the patent system is a mess, but it is not an > > overriding issue in my work with PostgreSQL. > > Your work with PostgreSQL (AFAIK) wouldn't run into the problem. People > like Berkus, myself, EnterpriseDB, Greenplumn, SRA (Yes I know they > employ you), PgSQL, Inc., are who are going to run into the problem. > > All due respect but perhaps it is worth considering the issue as a total > community versus just how it affects you. Yea, I have been at this for nine years because I look at all issues only from my perspective. Do you honestly believe that? -- 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
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>>I personally know the patent system is a mess, but it is not an >>>overriding issue in my work with PostgreSQL. >> >>Your work with PostgreSQL (AFAIK) wouldn't run into the problem. People >>like Berkus, myself, EnterpriseDB, Greenplumn, SRA (Yes I know they >>employ you), PgSQL, Inc., are who are going to run into the problem. >> >>All due respect but perhaps it is worth considering the issue as a total >>community versus just how it affects you. > > > Yea, I have been at this for nine years because I look at all issues > only from my perspective. Do you honestly believe that? Normally no, but your comment was : but it is not an overriding issue in my work with PostgreSQL. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >
Guys, Hey, how about we leave off on this issue for long enough for other community members to voice their opinion? -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > >>>I personally know the patent system is a mess, but it is not an > >>>overriding issue in my work with PostgreSQL. > >> > >>Your work with PostgreSQL (AFAIK) wouldn't run into the problem. People > >>like Berkus, myself, EnterpriseDB, Greenplumn, SRA (Yes I know they > >>employ you), PgSQL, Inc., are who are going to run into the problem. > >> > >>All due respect but perhaps it is worth considering the issue as a total > >>community versus just how it affects you. > > > > > > Yea, I have been at this for nine years because I look at all issues > > only from my perspective. Do you honestly believe that? > > Normally no, but your comment was : > > but it is not an overriding issue in my work with PostgreSQL. I mean the community. It is hard to get everyone to agree even to just your "News" text. Trying to get agreement on a permanent text and that is should be permanent is harder, and as you said, it is of more concern to PostgreSQL companies than the community, and the companies should deal with the political issue as they see best. If you want to try for a vote, go ahead. I don't have the time. -- 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
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> I read their "About" >> >> http://www.eff.org/about/ >> >> Too political, this group is not just anti-patents and goes much farther >> than I think we can agree as a group. > > > Uhmmm software patents are about as political as you can get ;). > Agreed. Which if I understand correctly accounts for Bruce's opposition. Also if we don't have the main button link to the EFF page but provide a list of other online resources (approved by the community) we need not indicate that we identify with the EFF regarding all their causes. I am generally opposed to unnecessarily politicizing work-based communities. The PostgreSQL is very much a work-based community, so for me to support it, I must generally decide that the community is so much better off that we really must take a stand on it. Or that we as a community are already taking a de facto stand. If I understand other people correctly, Joshua Drake and Bruce Momjian set a similarly high bar for such activity. Stating that the PostgreSQL community has no position on software patents is not quite accurate. I don't even think that Bruce can make that case after the ARC issue. Changing the caching algorythm in the middle of a stable branch (which would otherwise only contain bug fixes) over patent concerns sends a very loud message, and one which has been picked up on in a number of publications. This is true especially given the fact that we did not try to resolve this matter with IBM. So like it or not we are politicized already by circumstances forced on us by oneof IBM's patents. So if we are going to be politicized anyway, we might as well make sure that we are clear about our message. Otherwise, we are at the mercy of journalists' interpretations, and we will perpetuate a situation where those involved in the decision to replace ARC are essentially left to represent our community in this political issue without any community approved resources except their interpretation of a set of events surrounding this patent. Here is what I would suggest. Have a "No Software Patents" button. Have it link to a discussion of software patents with the ARC patent as the prime example of why software patents hurt open source and small software developers. Keep it close to home. Provide a list of advocacy organizations (like the EFF) with a disclaimer that we are not responsible for their positions nor their content. Done well, this could be a great benefit. But I do agree that it could be damaging if done poorly. Lets make this a powerful testimony to the dangers that these patents pose for our members, but keep it reasonable, accessible, and down to earth. Now, why should we wait for a general consensus on this issue before hashing out the details? I don't care where the page is hosted as long as it represents those of us who want to link ot it. Also it is easier to discuss the reservations of any in the community if we have a definite proposal (including, if possible, suggested wording). Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consultings > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > > > >> > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > >
>>> >>>Yea, I have been at this for nine years because I look at all issues >>>only from my perspective. Do you honestly believe that? >> >>Normally no, but your comment was : >> >>but it is not an overriding issue in my work with PostgreSQL. > > > I mean the community. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
Hi Bruce; Ordinarily I would agree with you. I think it is way too easy for open source communities or other work communities to politicize themselves and this carries with it the risk of alienating members and potential members. If this was being asked before the ARC issue, I would be backing your side more or less completely. Also note that Joshua Drake used to oppose the idea as well. I can't speak for Mr. Drake, though he has stated that he has a commercial interest in such text because of recent experiences. I don't doubt that other businesses do as well. My business does for the simple reason that I can't afford to do a patent search on every algorythm I use in every program I write. With all due respect to Command Prompt, I do not find this reasoning compelling for the community. As companies we have to take a stand on this. Just because we do, this does not imply that we must make this a part of the community. Indeed doing so can cause more harm than good if we become "just another propaganda arm" of some other organization from the viewpoint of the newcommer. However, we are not just another open source project without any first-hand experience on this issue. We are, I hope, not merely talking about rehashing the advocacy writings of the EFF and others. We have first hand experience which can be valuable if shared. We have something unique to say about this issue as a community based on recent experience. We have taken a stand on this list and others by saying we don't even want to ask IBM for permission to use their patents. So like it or not, we already have a community position which is largely, if not a matter of concensus, a matter which cannot be dismissed. It is too late to ask whether we should take a stand on this issue as a community. I have said I support the idea but am concerned about details. I would like to see a unique button (not one copied from another organization's site), a unique page on PostgreSQL detailing our experience with this issue, and, provided that we do link to other organizations, provide a disclaimer that indicates that we do not feel that they speak for us. I even wonder if it is better to have the button say something neutral like "Patents and PostgreSQL" or "Patents and Open Source." Maybe even "Learn about Software Patents." Something that does not say what our position is before they read it. Then it is mostly discussing our experience with the issue rather than a political rant. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 09:22:00PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Hey, how about we leave off on this issue for long enough for other community > members to voice their opinion? Is this a vote? I agree with you on that it's a very important issue, and that it deserves a lot more than a news item. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[@]dcc.uchile.cl>) "Industry suffers from the managerial dogma that for the sake of stability and continuity, the company should be independent of the competence of individual employees." (E. Dijkstra)
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 09:22:00PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > >>Hey, how about we leave off on this issue for long enough for other community >>members to voice their opinion? > > > Is this a vote? I agree with you on that it's a very important issue, > and that it deserves a lot more than a news item. > You definitely have my vote. I think every OSS project should take a stand against software patents. I'll include whatever link you will be using on the PL/Java project page as well. Regards, Thomas Hallgren
Josh Berkus wrote: > Oh, I don't know. Who's opposing a web button? Yes, I am strongly opposed: I don't think we should be advancing political views as a project. If some people are opposed to software patents, what is wrong with voicing that opposition as individuals? -Neil
Chris Travers wrote: > Stating that the PostgreSQL community has no position on software > patents is not quite accurate. I think this it's true. Members of the community have various opinions, but AFAIK the project as a whole does not. > Changing the caching algorythm in the middle of a stable branch > (which would otherwise only contain bug fixes) over patent concerns > sends a very loud message Yes, and that message is "PostgreSQL will try to avoid infringing on patents.", or at least will work around the problem when it is brought to our attention. I don't see that it can be interpreted as opposition to software patents per se. -Neil
Hi all, >>http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ > > We'd link to the FFII instead. They're a little more persuasive, and > significantly more effective: > http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/demands/0504/index.en.html You can link both, those two organizations have / are about to merge: http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=488 (and that was a month ago). Just my two cents: More than a month ago, I was the one asking here why there was no link to an anti-patent organization onto the www.postgresql.org website. Everyone here told me it as to be a personal involvement to clearly say we are against patents, but that the Project itself couldn't be against patents because it would involve PostgreSQL into Politics. I really feel sad and sorry to read here it was really problematic for US part of PostgreSQL project, I felt like the PostgreSQL project was more American than International then, since American issues on that topic overrided others arguments. But I can understand that, I know over there problems are differents and so on. As an independant non-profit organization, PostgreSQLFr asked its members wheter to put static or not links to FFII & NOPATENTS. We just had 100% votes for, 0% against. Thats why since March 10st 2005 we have those two banners on our Website: http://www.postgresqlfr.org/ Just to say that if the PostgreSQL project itself was claiming on its official website that he is against software patents, this would make us even more proud of the project here, in Europe. Thanks for your attention. Best Regards, -- Jean-Paul ARGUDO www.PostgreSQLFr.org Trésorier de PostgreSQLFr OpenPGP : 1024D/93A41CA4
Thomas Hallgren wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 09:22:00PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >> >> >>> Hey, how about we leave off on this issue for long enough for other >>> community members to voice their opinion? >> >> >> >> Is this a vote? I agree with you on that it's a very important issue, >> and that it deserves a lot more than a news item. +1 Vote from me. I don't see a reason why the PostgreSQL community should hide their opinion on swpats, esp. since it already did hit us. Our position should be stated at least as prominent as /about/licence. Regards, Andreas
Neil Conway wrote: > Chris Travers wrote: > >> Stating that the PostgreSQL community has no position on software >> patents is not quite accurate. > > > I think this it's true. Members of the community have various opinions, > but AFAIK the project as a whole does not. > One thing that would be relevant to this discussion is if we have members that are in favor of software patents. If we don't I think it's safe to say that the community as a whole (and thus, the project) indeed does have a strong opinion against. So, members that are in favor of software patents. Please speak up. Regards, Thomas Hallgren
On 4/22/05, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> wrote:
> >> Is this a vote? I agree with you on that it's a very important issue,
> >> and that it deserves a lot more than a news item.
> +1 Vote from me. I don't see a reason why the PostgreSQL community
> should hide their opinion on swpats, esp. since it already did hit us.
> Our position should be stated at least as prominent as /about/licence.
Well, I am for any kind of statement that PostgreSQL is against
Software patents. It does not need to be a direct link to FFII or EFF.
I think there should be a link/button "PostgreSQL's standpoint on
software patents issue". And under it there would be our page
describing our problem with ARC patent, how we dealt with it
and why. Plus links to anti-patent organisations.
We don't need to say explicitly that we are against software patents.
It is sufficient to say that PostgreSQL as a project will avoid patents
rather than seek contracts with patent-holders. And that PostgreSQL
Project will not try to issue patents since we feel that it is against
BSD way of life.
ARC patent is a good sample to indirectly say what we all agree on:
* PostgreSQL will not use patented algorithms. Only case when we
will consider using patents is when they are in accord with BSD
spirit.
* PostgreSQL will not patent algorithms. Since we are BSD projects,
we are doing it for the people. If we create something new, we would
like others to follow, and we would like be able to follow good ideas
from others as well.
* PostgreSQL will not try to make deals with patent holders (like
IBM). We think that while they may be friendly towards us, they may
be not towards companies relicensing our software (commercialized
PostgreSQL versions), and we feel it should not be so. We don't do it
because we don't like patent holders, it is because we care about
PostgreSQL users.
* PostgreSQL will not use known-patented ideas, for the reasons
above. So even if some ideas are great and well documented we cannot
use them, for the sake of PostgreSQL's and PostgreSQL-related
companies legal safety.
I think it would be feasible and most community members would agree upon
something like this. We don't say 'we will fight with patents to death', but we
state 'we are avoiding patents as much as we can, we have no other choice'.
Regards,
Dawid
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:22:48 +0000 Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> wrote:
> +1 Vote from me. I don't see a reason why the PostgreSQL community
> should hide their opinion on swpats, esp. since it already did hit us.
> Our position should be stated at least as prominent as /about/licence.
i too favor a restrained "no software patents" page with a carefully
selected list of links to other resources.
minimize the politics, but make the position clear, and give people
a place to go for more information.
richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
"F=ma : it's not just a good idea, it's the law"
Hi all My vote is on http://postgresql.de Regards Conni
Jean-Paul Argudo wrote: > I really feel sad and sorry to read here it was really problematic for US part > of PostgreSQL project, I felt like the PostgreSQL project was more American > than International then, since American issues on that topic overrided others > arguments. I don't see this as an international vs. USA issue at all. If anything, I am embarrassed by the USA in this area. -- 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 Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Jean-Paul Argudo wrote: >> I really feel sad and sorry to read here it was really problematic for US part >> of PostgreSQL project, I felt like the PostgreSQL project was more American >> than International then, since American issues on that topic overrided others >> arguments. > > I don't see this as an international vs. USA issue at all. If anything, > I am embarrassed by the USA in this area. One thing to note ... with ppl like Fujitsu and Greenplum doing "extensions" to PostgreSQL and re-releasing it, how many of those extensions are patent'd? In Greenplum's case, I believe that they do intend on having some patent'd stuff added to their code base, but it won't carry over to ours ... Our goal should be (I think) to be "patent free" when we know about patents, just like we did with IBM/ARC ... if we started to become "anti-patents", though, how would that reflect on those like Fujitsu/GreenPlum? In Fujitsu's case, they have definitely done *alot* to advance some very large/key features in PostgreSQL, but do we cast a shadow across the project by taking an 'anti-patent' stance when one of our major contributors most probably has *several*? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On 4/22/05, Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@postgresql.org> wrote:
> One thing to note ... with ppl like Fujitsu and Greenplum doing
> "extensions" to PostgreSQL and re-releasing it, how many of those
> extensions are patent'd? In Greenplum's case, I believe that they do
> intend on having some patent'd stuff added to their code base, but it
> won't carry over to ours ...
>
> Our goal should be (I think) to be "patent free" when we know about
> patents, just like we did with IBM/ARC ... if we started to become
I think "patent free" is a right way to go! I think everybody should
agree PostgreSQL should be patent free. :) And we had test case,
the ARC patent stuff.
Patent free doesn't imply we are actively against patents, we just
don't want patents to hinder PostgreSQL's development.
Regards,
Dawid
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > but do we cast a > shadow across the project by taking an 'anti-patent' stance when one of > our major contributors most probably has *several*? > Fujitsu is a commercial entity, forced to play by the game stipulated by current patent laws. That's not mean that they love their patents. I think it is very far fetched to assume that Fujitsu (or anyone else) would be offended if we state that we don't like software patents. I also strongly feel that the PostgreSQL community should express their opinion freely. Speculations on what opinions a sponsor might or might not have should really have no significance at all. Regards, Thomas Hallgren
Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> On 4/22/05, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> wrote:
> > >> Is this a vote? I agree with you on that it's a very important issue,
> > >> and that it deserves a lot more than a news item.
> > +1 Vote from me. I don't see a reason why the PostgreSQL community
> > should hide their opinion on swpats, esp. since it already did hit us.
> > Our position should be stated at least as prominent as /about/licence.
>
> Well, I am for any kind of statement that PostgreSQL is against
> Software patents. It does not need to be a direct link to FFII or EFF.
>
> I think there should be a link/button "PostgreSQL's standpoint on
> software patents issue". And under it there would be our page
> describing our problem with ARC patent, how we dealt with it
> and why. Plus links to anti-patent organisations.
>
> We don't need to say explicitly that we are against software patents.
> It is sufficient to say that PostgreSQL as a project will avoid patents
> rather than seek contracts with patent-holders. And that PostgreSQL
> Project will not try to issue patents since we feel that it is against
> BSD way of life.
...
> I think it would be feasible and most community members would agree upon
> something like this. We don't say 'we will fight with patents to death', but we
> state 'we are avoiding patents as much as we can, we have no other choice'.
My personal opinion is that the patent office has clearly approved
trivial patents in both software and business processes (like the
one-click patent). I think perhaps there should be no software /
business process patents, but I am not positive on that fact. (In fact,
there is the larger issue of whether there should be any patents at
all.)
Historically patents have protected small companies from having their
ideas stolen by larger companies. That has worked sometimes, and other
times patents have been abused terribly, and this is not the first time
patents have been abused.
From an open source perspective, I think patents are the most effective
way for proprietary companies to attack open source projects, and I am
shocked that this has not happened already. I am confused why it hasn't
happened as much yet. (I have asked folks at conferences and no one
seems to know the answer.) Perhaps it is because the enforcement of
patents is too difficult, perhaps they realize open source is global and
therefore can avoid enforcement, perhaps it the fear of bad public
relations, or perhaps they are waiting for Europe to approve patents.
(SCO vs. Linux is a copyright case and is easier to enforce.)
So, I am basically saying that there is a clear link between patents and
possible attacks on our project.
However, these are my personal opinions, and from a community
perspective I feel we should have web site information that is approved
by a large majority of our community. Looking at the replies to this
thread, I am not sure we have reached that large majority yet.
By posting a news item, someone's email is attached to it and it doesn't
need the same majority as a permanent statement would need.
And what statement are you going to make that is going to get a large
majority vote?
o patents are bad
o software patents are bad
o trivial software patents are bad
And then you have the "sky is falling" groups that we (I think) don't
want to be associated with. The bottom line is that this topic is
pretty complex, and isn't as easy to just say "no software patents"
without understanding the reason for patents and the ramifications of
eliminating them. It is sort of like the GNU simple-sounding "software
should be free" but the ramifications (GPL) have their own complexities.
For the ARC case, I don't think most people consider the pending patent
trivial, and I bet some community members think it is OK for IBM to have
patented that idea. I might agree with that or not, but I think some
might hold that opinion.
Then there is the issue of whether any complex piece of software can be
developed and infringe no patents, or be done without a team of lawyers
to check all patents for possible violations.
The bottom line is that for permanent content, you are going to have to
get super-majority agreement on all these issues in your statement, or
keep it narrow enough so you can get such a majority.
(Everytime I email about patents I am careful because I suspect my words
might be used against me some day in court, so I do try to avoid the
subject in public discourse if possible.)
--
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
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Jean-Paul Argudo wrote: > >> I really feel sad and sorry to read here it was really problematic for US part > >> of PostgreSQL project, I felt like the PostgreSQL project was more American > >> than International then, since American issues on that topic overrided others > >> arguments. > > > > I don't see this as an international vs. USA issue at all. If anything, > > I am embarrassed by the USA in this area. > > One thing to note ... with ppl like Fujitsu and Greenplum doing > "extensions" to PostgreSQL and re-releasing it, how many of those > extensions are patent'd? In Greenplum's case, I believe that they do > intend on having some patent'd stuff added to their code base, but it > won't carry over to ours ... > > Our goal should be (I think) to be "patent free" when we know about > patents, just like we did with IBM/ARC ... if we started to become > "anti-patents", though, how would that reflect on those like > Fujitsu/GreenPlum? In Fujitsu's case, they have definitely done *alot* to > advance some very large/key features in PostgreSQL, but do we cast a > shadow across the project by taking an 'anti-patent' stance when one of > our major contributors most probably has *several*? Good distinction. It is a lot easier to get agreement on being "patent-free" rather than "anti-patent". -- 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 Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >>> Jean-Paul Argudo wrote: >>>> I really feel sad and sorry to read here it was really problematic for US part >>>> of PostgreSQL project, I felt like the PostgreSQL project was more American >>>> than International then, since American issues on that topic overrided others >>>> arguments. >>> >>> I don't see this as an international vs. USA issue at all. If anything, >>> I am embarrassed by the USA in this area. >> >> One thing to note ... with ppl like Fujitsu and Greenplum doing >> "extensions" to PostgreSQL and re-releasing it, how many of those >> extensions are patent'd? In Greenplum's case, I believe that they do >> intend on having some patent'd stuff added to their code base, but it >> won't carry over to ours ... >> >> Our goal should be (I think) to be "patent free" when we know about >> patents, just like we did with IBM/ARC ... if we started to become >> "anti-patents", though, how would that reflect on those like >> Fujitsu/GreenPlum? In Fujitsu's case, they have definitely done *alot* to >> advance some very large/key features in PostgreSQL, but do we cast a >> shadow across the project by taking an 'anti-patent' stance when one of >> our major contributors most probably has *several*? > > Good distinction. It is a lot easier to get agreement on being > "patent-free" rather than "anti-patent". *nod* Personally, I'm not 'anti-patent', I'm just against abuse of the patent system ... and I think alot of the patents that have been going out have shown to be sooooo vague as to be useless, but being approved anyway :( ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Maybe a good starting point would be for the core to agree on an official statement about why ARC was replaced with 2Q and publish that statement somewhere on the web page. I think real cases of problems caused by patents will do more good than a bunch of people saying they don't like them. Someone could then let someone like FFII know about the statement and its URL and that should get it where people will hear about it.
On Friday 22 April 2005 11:15, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Historically patents have protected small companies from having their
> ideas stolen by larger companies. That has worked sometimes, and other
> times patents have been abused terribly, and this is not the first time
> patents have been abused.
>
One has to wonder, what is the difference between protecting small companies
from larger companies, or protecting small companies from large open source
projects who reverse engineer their software and distribute it worlwide,
putting said small company out of business.
> From an open source perspective, I think patents are the most effective
> way for proprietary companies to attack open source projects, and I am
> shocked that this has not happened already. I am confused why it hasn't
> happened as much yet. (I have asked folks at conferences and no one
> seems to know the answer.) Perhaps it is because the enforcement of
> patents is too difficult, perhaps they realize open source is global and
> therefore can avoid enforcement, perhaps it the fear of bad public
> relations, or perhaps they are waiting for Europe to approve patents.
> (SCO vs. Linux is a copyright case and is easier to enforce.)
>
Perhaps because most open source projects have little to no money, s the
traditional process of sueing infringers for big $$ or to force licensing
arrangments just doesn't work.
> So, I am basically saying that there is a clear link between patents and
> possible attacks on our project.
>
> However, these are my personal opinions, and from a community
> perspective I feel we should have web site information that is approved
> by a large majority of our community. Looking at the replies to this
> thread, I am not sure we have reached that large majority yet.
>
> By posting a news item, someone's email is attached to it and it doesn't
> need the same majority as a permanent statement would need.
>
> And what statement are you going to make that is going to get a large
> majority vote?
>
> o patents are bad
> o software patents are bad
> o trivial software patents are bad
>
You can post a statement that the postgresql project feels it is in our best
interest and in our users best interest to avoid patents within our code.
You can also point out that if there were no software patents, we wouldn't
have to worry about this. I don't think anyone would disagree with the
above.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote: > On Friday 22 April 2005 11:15, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Historically patents have protected small companies from having their > > ideas stolen by larger companies. That has worked sometimes, and other > > times patents have been abused terribly, and this is not the first time > > patents have been abused. > > > > One has to wonder, what is the difference between protecting small companies > from larger companies, or protecting small companies from large open source > projects who reverse engineer their software and distribute it worlwide, > putting said small company out of business. Yep, good point. > > From an open source perspective, I think patents are the most effective > > way for proprietary companies to attack open source projects, and I am > > shocked that this has not happened already. I am confused why it hasn't > > happened as much yet. (I have asked folks at conferences and no one > > seems to know the answer.) Perhaps it is because the enforcement of > > patents is too difficult, perhaps they realize open source is global and > > therefore can avoid enforcement, perhaps it the fear of bad public > > relations, or perhaps they are waiting for Europe to approve patents. > > (SCO vs. Linux is a copyright case and is easier to enforce.) > > > > Perhaps because most open source projects have little to no money, s the > traditional process of sueing infringers for big $$ or to force licensing > arrangments just doesn't work. Yes, but what about commercial db companies where we are eating into their business? Why haven't they attacked us yet? > > And what statement are you going to make that is going to get a large > > majority vote? > > > > o patents are bad > > o software patents are bad > > o trivial software patents are bad > > > > You can post a statement that the postgresql project feels it is in our best > interest and in our users best interest to avoid patents within our code. > You can also point out that if there were no software patents, we wouldn't > have to worry about this. I don't think anyone would disagree with the > above. Right. Such a limited approach is best. -- 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
> Fujitsu/GreenPlum? In Fujitsu's case, they have definitely done *alot* > to advance some very large/key features in PostgreSQL, but do we cast a > shadow across the project by taking an 'anti-patent' stance when one of > our major contributors most probably has *several*? I don't see the community as specifying that it is ant-software patents as casting a shadow over fujitsu. We have already made it clear that we won't accept known patented software anyway. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedication Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Josh Berkus wrote: > Bruce, > >> I think a News item is all we, as a group, are going to agree to at this >> point. > > Oh, I don't know. Who's opposing a web button? Is there really anyone > in our active community who favors the introduction of software patents > into Europe? I'm not ambivalent about it ... depending on how implemented, patents aren't inherently evil ... its how they've been abused in the US that seems to be what everyone is looking at ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> I read their "About" >> >> http://www.eff.org/about/ >> >> Too political, this group is not just anti-patents and goes much farther >> than I think we can agree as a group. > > Uhmmm software patents are about as political as you can get ;). Only if they affect you, and they don't affect us, since we strive to be patent free, as seen by how quickly we removed the ARC stuff ... *And* ... unless I'm mistaken, this whole 'anti-patent' stuff will never get rid of the existing patent system in the US, or any other country, will it? Only about the EU implementing such? And, as far as that is concerned, does anyone here *know* what is being proposed in the EU? Is it a better (more strict) patent system then there exists in the US? Or is it going to allow for ppl to patent "generic ideas", like some of the ones going through the US patent system have been ... ? Basically, if we're going to be *anti-patent*, we need to know the why of it ... is it just because we are anarchist and dont' believe that anything should be regulated? Or is it because of what we've been seeing over teh past couple of years coming out of the US Patent office? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
> > o patents are bad > o software patents are bad We are specifically talking about software patents. I think that should be the only realm we address. > > The bottom line is that for permanent content, you are going to have to > get super-majority agreement on all these issues in your statement, or > keep it narrow enough so you can get such a majority. So far only one person has said no (Neil). That is fairly clear to me. > > (Everytime I email about patents I am careful because I suspect my words > might be used against me some day in court, so I do try to avoid the > subject in public discourse if possible.) Well I have no such concern. Software patents are stupid. There only purpose is to generate protective revenue for corporations against the inspiring minds of others. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake President Command Prompt, Inc. > -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedication Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
> > *nod* Personally, I'm not 'anti-patent', I'm just against abuse of the > patent system ... and I think alot of the patents that have been going > out have shown to be sooooo vague as to be useless, but being approved > anyway :( Agreed. I am not anti-patent either. I am anti-software patent. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedication Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > All due respect but perhaps it is worth considering the issue as a total > community versus just how it affects you. Note that I don't necessarily agree with Bruce about how "high profile" this is ... But, as a community it doesn't affect us either, since we don't include patent'd software, and if we are made aware of a patent related issue, we work to remove it Whereas, from a "business community" standpoint, there it affects, but not from the "OSS PostgreSQL Community" side ... the only way it truly affects "the community" is if someone like SRA wanted to release patent'd code into our core code base, and I can't see them doing that without a suitabily written 'right to use' attached to it that would be agreeable to the community as a whole (including those other businesses doing their own bundles), or else it wouldn't be included ... Unless I'm missing something? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc, > Basically, if we're going to be *anti-patent*, we need to know the why of > it ... is it just because we are anarchist and dont' believe that anything > should be regulated? Or is it because of what we've been seeing over teh > past couple of years coming out of the US Patent office? The proposal is to implement a system in the EU similar to what the US has. Otherwise, read up at www.ffii.org. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Marc, > But, as a community it doesn't affect us either, since we don't include > patent'd software, and if we are made aware of a patent related issue, we > work to remove it > Unless I'm missing something? Yep. We all spent a couple weeks discussing the ARC patent. Tom spent several days coding a workaround. Now imagine if someone were to hit us with a patent claim every week. Would we get any development done? Would any commercial user be willing to use our software without indemnity if they were getting served every month (or even once)? That's the threat that software patents hold for OSS. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
>> >> >> Uhmmm software patents are about as political as you can get ;). > > > Only if they affect you, and they don't affect us, since we strive to be > patent free, as seen by how quickly we removed the ARC stuff ... World hunger is only poltical if it affects you. It doesn't affect us. We don't live in a closet. > *And* ... unless I'm mistaken, this whole 'anti-patent' stuff will never > get rid of the existing patent system in the US, or any other country, > will it? O.k. first, we are talking about SOFTWARE PATENTS. Not patents in general. It could very well change it. The US Patriot act is getting ready to get overhauled exactly because of ALL the noise that has been made about it. Do I think our stance will change the patent system? I have no idea. Does that mean it won't? Does that mean that our stance won't inspire others and thus create a force that could? > Basically, if we're going to be *anti-patent*, we need to know the why anti-software-patent Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake Command Prompt, Inc. -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedication Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Well I have no such concern. Software patents are stupid. There only > purpose is to generate protective revenue for corporations against the > inspiring minds of others. Myself, I believe that software patents can be useful if the patent in question is properly/strictly defined ... the big thing, for me, is that there have been *alot* being approved that are *way* too generic, and that is something that needs/should be fixed ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 09:47:48AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >The bottom line is that for permanent content, you are going to have to > >get super-majority agreement on all these issues in your statement, or > >keep it narrow enough so you can get such a majority. > > So far only one person has said no (Neil). That is fairly clear to me. So far three core members have expressed their opinion: Bruce, Josh and Marc. What about the rest? Peter, Jan, Tom? -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[@]dcc.uchile.cl>) Syntax error: function hell() needs an argument. Please choose what hell you want to involve.
> But, as a community it doesn't affect us either, since we don't include > patent'd software, How do you know? > and if we are made aware of a patent related issue, > we work to remove it Yes. > > Whereas, from a "business community" standpoint, there it affects, but > not from the "OSS PostgreSQL Community" side ... Really? Hypothectical: Alvaro at his own volition implements algorithm foobar. Foobar is patented but we don't. Alvaro didn't know. We find out 4 years later and foobar has become the core of the PostgreSQL planner. How does that not effect the community? Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake Command Prompt, Inc. -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedication Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
> > > Myself, I believe that software patents can be useful if the patent in > question is properly/strictly defined ... the big thing, for me, is that > there have been *alot* being approved that are *way* too generic, and > that is something that needs/should be fixed ... I have yet to see any software patent that does not have some level of prior art. That doesn't mean they are not there but I haven't seen them. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake Command Prompt, Inc. > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedication Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > But, as a community it doesn't affect us either, since we don't include > patent'd software, and if we are made aware of a patent related issue, we > work to remove it I think you are overly optimistic that PostgreSQL is actually patent free. The community just only stumbled over ARC, but there could be many more pieces of PostgreSQL possibly infringing patents... What if someone will come and tell the community that PostgreSQL uses 50 ideas or algorithms patented by someone else? Will you be happy about removing all issues? Will that be possible at all? Best Regards, Michael Paesold
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > o patents are bad > > o software patents are bad > > We are specifically talking about software patents. I think that should > be the only realm we address. > > > > > The bottom line is that for permanent content, you are going to have to > > get super-majority agreement on all these issues in your statement, or > > keep it narrow enough so you can get such a majority. > > So far only one person has said no (Neil). That is fairly clear to me. What about Dave Page and me. I have seen perhaps 6 yes and 3 no. That isn't enough, I think. > > (Everytime I email about patents I am careful because I suspect my words > > might be used against me some day in court, so I do try to avoid the > > subject in public discourse if possible.) > > Well I have no such concern. Software patents are stupid. There only > purpose is to generate protective revenue for corporations against the > inspiring minds of others. This is the simplistic approach I want to avoid. -- 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
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 09:47:48AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > >The bottom line is that for permanent content, you are going to have to > > >get super-majority agreement on all these issues in your statement, or > > >keep it narrow enough so you can get such a majority. > > > > So far only one person has said no (Neil). That is fairly clear to me. > > So far three core members have expressed their opinion: Bruce, Josh and > Marc. What about the rest? Peter, Jan, Tom? I don't think a core member has any special weight in this issue compared do a regular community member. -- 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
Josh Berkus wrote: > Marc, > > > But, as a community it doesn't affect us either, since we don't include > > patent'd software, and if we are made aware of a patent related issue, we > > work to remove it > > Unless I'm missing something? > > Yep. We all spent a couple weeks discussing the ARC patent. Tom spent > several days coding a workaround. > > Now imagine if someone were to hit us with a patent claim every week. Would > we get any development done? Would any commercial user be willing to use our > software without indemnity if they were getting served every month (or even > once)? > > That's the threat that software patents hold for OSS. Yep, that is the big open issue. What if a patent hits that we can't easily work around? We could be crippled. But, that is my personal opinion. I don't think that should be codified in our web site. -- 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
Robert Treat wrote: > One has to wonder, what is the difference between protecting small companies > from larger companies, or protecting small companies from large open source > projects who reverse engineer their software and distribute it worlwide, > putting said small company out of business. > One of the arguments used by the software patent opponents is that software patents utterly fails this purpose in this respect. Instead of protecting small companies, it gives big companies the tool they need to put the small companies out of business. Simply because the small companies cannot affort a lengthy legal process. > Perhaps because most open source projects have little to no money, s the > traditional process of sueing infringers for big $$ or to force licensing > arrangments just doesn't work. > That makes it even easier for the big companies to put the OSS projects out of business if that is what they want. As OSS has more and more impact on their revenue, rest assured that there will be lawsuits. Sooner rather than later. The fact that software patents are recognized in a limited part of the world at present is protecting us to some extent. Less so if it gets approved in the EU. > You can post a statement that the postgresql project feels it is in our best > interest and in our users best interest to avoid patents within our code. > You can also point out that if there were no software patents, we wouldn't > have to worry about this. I don't think anyone would disagree with the > above. > True, but pointless. The reason this discussion is so vivid is that software patents pose a real threat to our way of developing software. If we at all care about this, we really should make a stand. Regards, Thomas Hallgren
On 4/22/2005 1:19 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 09:47:48AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >> > >The bottom line is that for permanent content, you are going to have to >> > >get super-majority agreement on all these issues in your statement, or >> > >keep it narrow enough so you can get such a majority. >> > >> > So far only one person has said no (Neil). That is fairly clear to me. >> >> So far three core members have expressed their opinion: Bruce, Josh and >> Marc. What about the rest? Peter, Jan, Tom? > > I don't think a core member has any special weight in this issue > compared do a regular community member. > Agreed, so here is my opinion as a community member. As an open source project, we are not a bystander but directly affected by the patent stupidity practiced all over. And as such, we should express our opinion about this matter. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 12:49, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> > *nod* Personally, I'm not 'anti-patent', I'm just against abuse of the
> > patent system ... and I think alot of the patents that have been going
> > out have shown to be sooooo vague as to be useless, but being approved
> > anyway :(
>
> Agreed. I am not anti-patent either. I am anti-software patent.
>
How do you differentiate one as bad but the other as good?
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 19:30:23 +0200, Thomas Hallgren <thhal@mailblocks.com> wrote: > That makes it even easier for the big companies to put the OSS projects > out of business if that is what they want. As OSS has more and more > impact on their revenue, rest assured that there will be lawsuits. > Sooner rather than later. The fact that software patents are recognized > in a limited part of the world at present is protecting us to some > extent. Less so if it gets approved in the EU. I think it has more to do with legislation is pending to legitimize software patents in some key areas of the world and vested interests don't want to produce a lot of examples of why those laws shouldn't be passed before they are acted on. I expect as soon as things are resolved in the European Union, you will see attacks against open source projects by major companies that are threatened by open source.
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > So far three core members have expressed their opinion: Bruce, Josh > and Marc. What about the rest? Peter, Jan, Tom? I lost track of what the specific question was, but I am not opposed to linking to well-balanced information about software patent issues from a prominent place on the PostgreSQL web site. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
> > > How do you differentiate one as bad but the other as good? That is a diatribe of an email for another time :) Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > > Robert Treat -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedication Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Neil Conway wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > >> Oh, I don't know. Who's opposing a web button? > > > Yes, I am strongly opposed: I don't think we should be advancing > political views as a project. If some people are opposed to software > patents, what is wrong with voicing that opposition as individuals? Neil; Would you be opposed to a simple writeup of why ARC was replaced with 2Q and why IBM's assurances of non-enforcement against open source products was insufficient? In general I too am skeptical of any attempt to politicize the community, but this has a strong practical aspect too and maybe we should focus on that aspect. Or in your view, should we be directing people to the mailing list archives for their primary source on the political positions we as a community have been forced to take for reasons beyond our immediate control? Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting > > -Neil > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > >
Bruce Momjian wrote: > >Good distinction. It is a lot easier to get agreement on being >"patent-free" rather than "anti-patent". > > > Hi Bruce and others; No fundamental disagreement from me. Just a question about gray area in this distinction: How do we know we are patent free? How is not asking for appropriate licenses for patents when they surface not an anti-patent stance? BTW, wrt the ARC patent. Given IBM's involvement in certain open source projects, such as OpenAFS and others, and given the way that they have worked with the community to license the patents, I think that it is entirely possible that they might have granted a mutually assured distruction-type license to the patent. In this sort of license, they allow people to use the patent provided that they don't sue over patent infringement in the software. This type of license is written into the IBM Public License (See OpenAFS) in drafts years before similar language ended up in the Apache license. A couple notes, however: Such licenses would have made this project GPL-incompatible (at least in the opinion of the FSF), given their statements of the new Apache license, and as such would have pushed the project away from its BSD-licensed roots (though I personally have no problem with the current Apache license). It is also possible that IBM could have made another exception for GPL'd software independent of this. Of course, IANAL. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > *And* ... unless I'm mistaken, this whole 'anti-patent' stuff will > never get rid of the existing patent system in the US, or any other > country, will it? Only about the EU implementing such? And, as far > as that is concerned, does anyone here *know* what is being proposed > in the EU? Is it a better (more strict) patent system then there > exists in the US? Or is it going to allow for ppl to patent "generic > ideas", like some of the ones going through the US patent system have > been ... ? > Hmmm.... There are two aspects to the patent system: The first is the USPTO and current patent law. This is the legal framework for patents. The second, IMO, is the business models that have grown up around exploiting this framework. The first one will not be soon changed. THe second one is being changed as we speak. Ironically for this conversation, it was IBM who really was the first major player to move in this direction with their release of OpenAFS under the IBM Public License. Similarly with the Apache License 2, we again have the idea that software patents can be used to stabilize the current situation. This is done by using patent licenses to *forbid* patent enforcement. IANAL, of course. Apache is a great example because it is used by so many businesses, and that these businesses would have to stop using the software and all derivatives if they wanted to sue over any patents covering the software. Otherwise the plaintiff loses all rights to use the patents licensed under the Apache License. Personally, I am all for going to IBM now and asking for an appropriate license for ARC. Otherwise we would have to remove the old versions from the download site. We are in a position where we can safely do this as the worst that can happen is that we stop distributing old versions of the software. And if they can work with us to meet our needs, then they will get some positive press out of it and the story will have a happy ending for them (and for everyone else, I might add, as this is a step towards mitigating future harm in the patent area). So the first step is to get large businesses to provide global licenses for their patents under non-enforcement terms (i.e. if you use this software you cannot enforce any other patents you may have against it). This *may* seem like ruffling feathers with some sponsors, but I think that it would also help convince them to contribute back because in so doing, they gain some protection. I.e. we get a patent pool behind the community. Once this is commonplace, then the legislative angle becomes less relevant and may eventually simply be a matter of formality. > Basically, if we're going to be *anti-patent*, we need to know the why > of it ... is it just because we are anarchist and dont' believe that > anything should be regulated? Or is it because of what we've been > seeing over teh past couple of years coming out of the US Patent office? > No argument here. I don't want to see simple flames against software patents on the web site any more than anyone else. THis is why I have been more of explaining our logic behind the ARC decision rather than flaming the patent system. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting >
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Basically, if we're going to be *anti-patent*, we need to know the why > > anti-software-patent You keep differentiating this ... but, in both cases, aren't we discussing IP rights? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 09:47:48AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>> The bottom line is that for permanent content, you are going to have to >>> get super-majority agreement on all these issues in your statement, or >>> keep it narrow enough so you can get such a majority. >> >> So far only one person has said no (Neil). That is fairly clear to me. > > So far three core members have expressed their opinion: Bruce, Josh and > Marc. What about the rest? Peter, Jan, Tom? 'k, just to clarify ... I'm not *anti* putting something up on the web page ... if nothing else, both sides (for and against) bring up strong arguments, and Joshua's mention of the Patriot ACT "rewrite(?)" based on amount of noise does tend to tip the scale a bit ... If it came down to a vote, I'd abstain ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>> Basically, if we're going to be *anti-patent*, we need to know the why >> >> >> anti-software-patent > > > You keep differentiating this ... but, in both cases, aren't we > discussing IP rights? Well that is not what I started this thread as. I started this thread about Software Patents. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedication Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >>>> Basically, if we're going to be *anti-patent*, we need to know the why >>> >>> >>> anti-software-patent >> >> >> You keep differentiating this ... but, in both cases, aren't we discussing >> IP rights? > > Well that is not what I started this thread as. I started this thread about > Software Patents. But isnt' the big issue against software patents right now more a case of "a few bad eggs spoiling it for everyone" then anything? Are *all* software patents out there evil? Again, as I've mentioned before, I know that there have been some "visible" cases where the patent applied for (and I believe approved) were for *very* generic concepts, which, IMHO, shouldn't be approved ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
>> >> Well that is not what I started this thread as. I started this thread >> about Software Patents. > > > But isnt' the big issue against software patents right now more a case > of "a few bad eggs spoiling it for everyone" then anything? Are *all* > software patents out there evil? I have yet to see a software patent that is valid. That doesn't mean that they are not out there but everyone that I have seen is ridiculous. Prior art is rampant in the software industry. We are not building an artificial heart here, we are building a database and databases have been around for decades. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > Again, as I've mentioned before, I know that there have been some > "visible" cases where the patent applied for (and I believe approved) > were for *very* generic concepts, which, IMHO, shouldn't be approved ... > > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedication Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 13:30, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> > You can post a statement that the postgresql project feels it is in our best
> > interest and in our users best interest to avoid patents within our code.
> > You can also point out that if there were no software patents, we wouldn't
> > have to worry about this. I don't think anyone would disagree with the
> > above.
> >
> True, but pointless. The reason this discussion is so vivid is that
> software patents pose a real threat to our way of developing software.
> If we at all care about this, we really should make a stand.
>
I don't buy this. Or rather, I don't believe open source can't work in a
society were software patents exist.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>> Basically, if we're going to be *anti-patent*, we need to know the why >> >> >> anti-software-patent > > > You keep differentiating this ... but, in both cases, aren't we > discussing IP rights? Am am not sure that I am anti-patent in the general sense. I am not sure that I would even be opposed to an appropriately balanced software patent system. However, I think that it is quite reasonable to say that our current patent system is unreasonable when it comes to software. I think that this is what Joshua is saying when he says that he is anti-software-patent. To this I would ask if he would have the same opposition of software patents lasted, say 3 years, and had a much higher standard of acceptance than they now do. What if they were more limited in scope? However, I don't see anyone arguing with the main point that open source software projects and small software development companies cannot afford to do any real patent searches in order to offer anyguarantee of non-infringement. This is a problem which is more practical and economic than political. And it is a real problem. Yes, I too worry about alienating the likes of Fujitsu. However, I think that if we are worried about it, maybe we should approach them and ask them what they thing on the matter? The issue of software patents is simply a question of whether they provide us the benefit the patent system was designed to provide. Nothing more or less. Best Wishes, CHris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting
Chris Travers wrote: > Neil Conway wrote: > > > Josh Berkus wrote: > > > >> Oh, I don't know. Who's opposing a web button? > > > > > > Yes, I am strongly opposed: I don't think we should be advancing > > political views as a project. If some people are opposed to software > > patents, what is wrong with voicing that opposition as individuals? > > > Neil; > > Would you be opposed to a simple writeup of why ARC was replaced with 2Q > and why IBM's assurances of non-enforcement against open source products > was insufficient? > > In general I too am skeptical of any attempt to politicize the > community, but this has a strong practical aspect too and maybe we > should focus on that aspect. > > Or in your view, should we be directing people to the mailing list > archives for their primary source on the political positions we as a > community have been forced to take for reasons beyond our immediate control? Certainly a write-up is a appropriate, perhaps as a News item. -- 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
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> > >> Well that is not what I started this thread as. I started this thread > >> about Software Patents. > > > > > > But isnt' the big issue against software patents right now more a case > > of "a few bad eggs spoiling it for everyone" then anything? Are *all* > > software patents out there evil? > > I have yet to see a software patent that is valid. That doesn't > mean that they are not out there but everyone that I have seen is > ridiculous. Prior art is rampant in the software industry. > > We are not building an artificial heart here, we are building a database > and databases have been around for decades. Well, ARC seems like a new database idea, at least in the past few years. Are you saying ARC is either "ridiculous" or has prior art? I know 2Q is similar, but not identical, and ARC does have some small improvements over it. -- 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
>>We are not building an artificial heart here, we are building a database >>and databases have been around for decades. > > > Well, ARC seems like a new database idea, at least in the past few > years. Are you saying ARC is either "ridiculous" or has prior art? I > know 2Q is similar, but not identical, and ARC does have some small > improvements over it. In this case I would say it is both. 2Q should (if not is) be considered prior art. Otherwise it would not have been as plug-n-play as it was. Note I am not making light of the work that it took, I couldn't have done it and I am glad that someone else had to. Secondly I would say that an ARC patent is ridiculous based on the above experience. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedication Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>We are not building an artificial heart here, we are building a database > >>and databases have been around for decades. > > > > > > Well, ARC seems like a new database idea, at least in the past few > > years. Are you saying ARC is either "ridiculous" or has prior art? I > > know 2Q is similar, but not identical, and ARC does have some small > > improvements over it. > > In this case I would say it is both. 2Q should (if not is) be considered > prior art. Otherwise it would not have been as plug-n-play as it was. > Note I am not making light of the work that it took, I couldn't have > done it and I am glad that someone else had to. > > Secondly I would say that an ARC patent is ridiculous based on the above > experience. ARC is 2Q with the ability to dynamically resize the four cache pools. -- 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
>> >>Secondly I would say that an ARC patent is ridiculous based on the above >>experience. > > > ARC is 2Q with the ability to dynamically resize the four cache pools. So ARC is 2Q++. My point exactly :) Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedication Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> > >>Secondly I would say that an ARC patent is ridiculous based on the above > >>experience. > > > > > > ARC is 2Q with the ability to dynamically resize the four cache pools. > > So ARC is 2Q++. My point exactly :) So you are saying "++" isn't patentable? I don't understand that. You are saying that there are no completely new ideas in databases, and that marginal improvements are not patentable? -- 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 Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 12:42:49PM +0200, Dawid Kuroczko wrote: > > Well, I am for any kind of statement that PostgreSQL is against > Software patents. It does not need to be a direct link to FFII or EFF. > > I think there should be a link/button "PostgreSQL's standpoint on > software patents issue". And under it there would be our page > describing our problem with ARC patent, how we dealt with it > and why. Plus links to anti-patent organisations. > > We don't need to say explicitly that we are against software patents. > It is sufficient to say that PostgreSQL as a project will avoid patents > rather than seek contracts with patent-holders. And that PostgreSQL > Project will not try to issue patents since we feel that it is against > BSD way of life. > > ARC patent is a good sample to indirectly say what we all agree on: > * PostgreSQL will not use patented algorithms. Only case when we > will consider using patents is when they are in accord with BSD > spirit. > * PostgreSQL will not patent algorithms. Since we are BSD projects, > we are doing it for the people. If we create something new, we would > like others to follow, and we would like be able to follow good ideas > from others as well. > * PostgreSQL will not try to make deals with patent holders (like > IBM). We think that while they may be friendly towards us, they may > be not towards companies relicensing our software (commercialized > PostgreSQL versions), and we feel it should not be so. We don't do it > because we don't like patent holders, it is because we care about > PostgreSQL users. > * PostgreSQL will not use known-patented ideas, for the reasons > above. So even if some ideas are great and well documented we cannot > use them, for the sake of PostgreSQL's and PostgreSQL-related > companies legal safety. > > I think it would be feasible and most community members would agree upon > something like this. We don't say 'we will fight with patents to death', but we > state 'we are avoiding patents as much as we can, we have no other choice'. > > Regards, > Dawid Stepping in the middle here, I'd like to point out that PostgreSQL is really good at what it does because it has a primary focus of an excellent database server. I believe what Dawid wrote, outlining our position by showing what action we take, will take and have taken on using (or rather not using) software patents is a very strong message. By focussing on what *we* do and don't do, we do not deviate from our primary purpose of excellent software. We don't join other organizations, but do not alienate them either. We speak our general aversion to software patents by saying what we do about them. I think staying focussed on what we do is the key for getting agreement on choosing the right action here. A "License and Patent" link from the main page to an explanation of the BSD license and publicly outlining our policies with regards to software patents is very pointed and strong. Historical note...one of the obvious reasons for the bsd patents was so that any company could take the university code and re-sell it. A perq for the professors and grad students as much as an altruistic ideal. --elein
Robert Treat wrote: >On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 13:30, Thomas Hallgren wrote: > > >>True, but pointless. The reason this discussion is so vivid is that >>software patents pose a real threat to our way of developing software. >>If we at all care about this, we really should make a stand. >> >> >> > >I don't buy this. Or rather, I don't believe open source can't work in a >society were software patents exist. > > Again, true but pointless. The problem exists not in the existance of some software patents but: 1) The huge number of them. 2) Their vauge wording (what infringes on these patents anyway?) 3) The fact that software could potentially contain so many potentially infringing algorythms. The system is so out of whack that I would argue that no software of any complexity can exist that does not arguably infringe on someone's patents. The key word is arguably because I don't think that any open source developer wants to face lawsuits in this regard. If we could reduce the number of software patents to, say 1% of what we have today and ensure that they are appropraitely scoped, then maybe we might have a chance. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting
Chris Travers wrote: > Would you be opposed to a simple writeup of why ARC was replaced with 2Q > and why IBM's assurances of non-enforcement against open source products > was insufficient? I think a fair number of individuals were somewhat confused by how we dealt with the ARC situation. Explaining what our reasoning was is probably a good idea. > Or in your view, should we be directing people to the mailing list > archives for their primary source on the political positions we as a > community have been forced to take for reasons beyond our immediate > control? I don't see how we've taken a "political position" due to ARC. We had a problem that might have inhibited the use of PostgreSQL by some people, so we worked around it. -Neil
We, for one (I guess it's not really one...), completely support this position, and will be posting an anti-patents policy on our web site. Having said that, we will also reserve the right -- as most companies do today -- to have patents that are for the exclusive purpose of defending ourselves against others' patent infringement suits. Fundamentally, we believe software patents are stupid and should be abolished, but we also have to deal with the world we live in. (Hey, *I* wrote the first PRINT statement. You all owe me money.) Andy Astor, President EnterpriseDB Corporation -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Joshua D. Drake Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:14 PM To: pgsql-www@postgresql.org Cc: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org Subject: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents Hello, Originally I was against the idea of putting up a no software patents logo/banner/statement etc... on the website. After recent events within Command Prompt, including some expensive legal fees to convince certain customers that there is not a chance in the world that we would sign a indemnification agreement that included patents in the definition, I have changed my mind. I would like to propose that we put a no software patents logo up. Command Prompt would also follow suit, and it would be great if the other companies such as Greenplum, SRA, PgSQL, Inc. etc, all did the same. Kind of like the PostgreSQL patent-free ring ;) Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc., Your PostgreSQL solutions company. 503-667-4564 Custom programming, 24x7 support, managed services, and hosting Open Source Authors: plPHP, pgManage, Co-Authors: plPerlNG Reliable replication, Mammoth Replicator - http://www.commandprompt.com/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, thhal@mailblocks.com (Thomas Hallgren) transmitted:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> but do we cast a shadow across the project by taking an
>> 'anti-patent' stance when one of our major contributors most
>> probably has *several*?
>>
> Fujitsu is a commercial entity, forced to play by the game stipulated
> by current patent laws. That's not mean that they love their
> patents. I think it is very far fetched to assume that Fujitsu (or
> anyone else) would be offended if we state that we don't like software
> patents.
>
> I also strongly feel that the PostgreSQL community should express
> their opinion freely. Speculations on what opinions a sponsor might or
> might not have should really have no significance at all.
This furthermore points to the "right answer" on this being that
individuals that want to express their displeasure about certain
political matters ought to simply do so.
Expecting the PostgreSQL project to "have an opinion" when it's not an
individual is a bit silly.
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "gmail.com")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/finances.html
"I withdraw my claim that rpm is proprietary -- my objections were
based on the documentation for the version of rpm (2.2.6) that I used
as a documentation source when writing makepkg and xrpm."
-- david parsons
Christopher Browne wrote: >>I also strongly feel that the PostgreSQL community should express >>their opinion freely. Speculations on what opinions a sponsor might or >>might not have should really have no significance at all. > > > This furthermore points to the "right answer" on this being that > individuals that want to express their displeasure about certain > political matters ought to simply do so. > > Expecting the PostgreSQL project to "have an opinion" when it's not an > individual is a bit silly. > What I meant was that we as a group must be able to agree on public statements without involving ourselves in speculations concerning sponsor opinions. Silly me. I thought that was plain obvious in this context. Regards, Thomas Hallgren
> >>I also strongly feel that the PostgreSQL community should express > >>their opinion freely. Speculations on what opinions a sponsor might or > >>might not have should really have no significance at all. Yes, I agree. I think that if we have sponsors like the one we have, they are surely aware that PG is an OSS project... So I think they understand what that means: it has to remain free and independant. If we begin like thinking we cannot do that or say this, *because* it may hurt these supporter or this other one, yet we aren't that free. I know many people here work for those supporters. I understand their point of view. But we have to think like an Open Source project, any other idea should be rejected imho. We should be thinking of what we all agree on and not "what if" we agree. > >Expecting the PostgreSQL project to "have an opinion" when it's not an > >individual is a bit silly. An OSS project is composed of individuals :-) We could play hours on words :-) Why don't we proceed to a vote ? Let's see what democracy in action does. > What I meant was that we as a group must be able to agree on public > statements without involving ourselves in speculations concerning > sponsor opinions. I totaly rejoin you on that point, as said just before. > Silly me. I thought that was plain obvious in this context. Seems not for anyone. Just to add little thing, I searched a bit about software patents on databases. There are *tons* on this topic. Most of them are trivial and insipid like many here wrote already. My analyze is that when software-patent war will begin, only big companies will remain on the scene. Just because little companies, even those who have already software patents, can not afford all the lawyers they need to face a big company that has lots of and all the justice costs... As an OSS project, we're just the same as a little company. Who will pay lawyers to us ? That's the main threat in my opinion. Do you really think well know RDMBS companies won't try to kill our project ? How will we face M$ *and* Oracle (be sure they'll join their efforts, to reduce their costs) ? I really imagine that the future will be like the cold had been, with nuclear weapons: software patents will be the guarantee for big companies that no one will start the war because potentialy all actors will loose. We haven't got any dissuasive weapon afaik to face that. Best Regards, -- Jean-Paul ARGUDO www.PostgreSQLFr.org Trésorier de PostgreSQLFr OpenPGP : 1024D/93A41CA4
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >> >> >>Secondly I would say that an ARC patent is ridiculous based on the >> >>above >> >>experience. >> > >> > >> > ARC is 2Q with the ability to dynamically resize the four cache pools. >> >> So ARC is 2Q++. My point exactly :) > > So you are saying "++" isn't patentable? I don't understand that. > > You are saying that there are no completely new ideas in databases, and > that marginal improvements are not patentable? I think so. It seems in this case, it is just "natural evolution". Just making something known more dynamic does not seem to be something that should be patentable. But well, this is just my very own personal opinion. You may have your own. :-) Best Regards, Michael
Robert Treat wrote: > On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 13:30, Thomas Hallgren wrote: > >>True, but pointless. The reason this discussion is so vivid is that >>software patents pose a real threat to our way of developing software. >>If we at all care about this, we really should make a stand. >> > > > I don't buy this. Or rather, I don't believe open source can't work in a > society were software patents exist. > I spend some time browsing for a page that would best condense what it is that make me an anti-patent'ist. This one is not that bad: http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/dangers/innovation.html The last paragraph should add that some entities that deal with software development doesn't have the option to spend *any* time on patent attorneys and lawsuits and even if they did, there would be no one paying for it. Such entities are sitting ducks if the legislation goes through. Regards, Thomas Hallgren
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 16:55:44 -0300, "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> wrote: > > But isnt' the big issue against software patents right now more a case of > "a few bad eggs spoiling it for everyone" then anything? Are *all* > software patents out there evil? That depends on what you think the purpose of patents are. If you think it is for promoting the general welfare, then software patents are universally bad. If you think they have some other purpose, then they might be good.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 17:45:05 -0400, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > >> > > >>Secondly I would say that an ARC patent is ridiculous based on the above > > >>experience. > > > > > > > > > ARC is 2Q with the ability to dynamically resize the four cache pools. > > > > So ARC is 2Q++. My point exactly :) > > So you are saying "++" isn't patentable? I don't understand that. > > You are saying that there are no completely new ideas in databases, and > that marginal improvements are not patentable? It isn't a matter of whether they can be patented, but whether they should be patented. There are costs involved with the patent system, and unless society gets some benefit from patents, then they shouldn't be used.
> >This furthermore points to the "right answer" on this being that >individuals that want to express their displeasure about certain >political matters ought to simply do so. > >Expecting the PostgreSQL project to "have an opinion" when it's not an >individual is a bit silly. > > I think at the bare minimum, I think that we need to have a statement on the web site (more than just a news item) explaining the whole ARC to 2Q issue and why we didn't go and ask IBM's permission first. This is a testimonial against software patents and is a stand against them, but more subtle than many here might want to see. I also think we should go and ask IBM now for permission for a number of reasons: 1) It will open the door to go back to ARC if we want. 2) It will provide us with proper contacts in case other patent issues arise in the future. 3) May provide a good way out for IBM regarding publicity they have received from it. 4) May provide us with some form of immunity from future patent lawsuits against other parties. Best Wishes, Chris Travers. Metatron Technology Consulting
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 09:57:49PM -0700, Chris Travers wrote: > > > > >This furthermore points to the "right answer" on this being that > >individuals that want to express their displeasure about certain > >political matters ought to simply do so. > > > >Expecting the PostgreSQL project to "have an opinion" when it's not an > >individual is a bit silly. > > > > > I think at the bare minimum, I think that we need to have a statement on > the web site (more than just a news item) explaining the whole ARC to 2Q > issue and why we didn't go and ask IBM's permission first. This is a > testimonial against software patents and is a stand against them, but > more subtle than many here might want to see. There is an article covering the ARC saga on General Bits Issue #96. http://www.varlena.com/GeneralBits/96.php > > I also think we should go and ask IBM now for permission for a number of > reasons: > 1) It will open the door to go back to ARC if we want. > 2) It will provide us with proper contacts in case other patent issues > arise in the future. > 3) May provide a good way out for IBM regarding publicity they have > received from it. > 4) May provide us with some form of immunity from future patent > lawsuits against other parties. > > Best Wishes, > Chris Travers. > Metatron Technology Consulting > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org >
elein wrote: > >>I think at the bare minimum, I think that we need to have a statement on >>the web site (more than just a news item) explaining the whole ARC to 2Q >>issue and why we didn't go and ask IBM's permission first. This is a >>testimonial against software patents and is a stand against them, but >>more subtle than many here might want to see. > > > > There is an article covering the ARC saga on General Bits Issue #96. > http://www.varlena.com/GeneralBits/96.php > Great article! There are some things to consider in this story. If a good conclusive statement concerning them can be added to the "subtle" version, I'm happy. The first one is: Neil discovered that IBM had applied for the ARC patent. How much efforts should the community spend on finding other applications for (or already approved) software patents that the PostgreSQL code might infringe upon? How many patent offices should be covered? Secondly: the next time this happens it is unlikely that we will be so lucky as to find a slot in replacement that performs equally well (ok, I know it was a bit more work than that and that performance actually improved, but you know what I mean). What do we do then? What would have happened if we'd discover that Oracle had a patent pending on the LRU-2Q system or if the ARC patent had that variant covered as well? Thirdly: ARC was chosen for good reasons after some discussions in the community. Choosing the best of breed solution for each problem in the PostgreSQL database is great. The implications of software patents is that we no longer can do that. Over time, most really good solutions will be patented. This will undoubtedly lead to that PostgreSQL becomes a second-grade database. Is that acceptable? And lastly: A summary where we conclude how many hours that was spend on the whole issue. Not just writing code but also discussions, articles, and other worries. Every hour spent on this was an hour not spent on innovative development. Regards, Thomas Hallgren