Thread: Oracle indemnifies PostgreSQL on its patents
Here is a surprising article about how Oracle has made open source projects, like PostgreSQL, safe from claims of infringing Oracle patents: http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=A0F5F220-5940-470D-8564-CEA7E2D2B954. Oracle, like IBM, Sony, RedHat, andNovell, is now a member of Oracle, like IBM, Sony, RedHat, and Novell, is now a member of the Open Invention Network, whose members all offer patent indemnification. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce, > Oracle, like IBM, Sony, RedHat, and Novell, is now a member of the Open > Invention Network, whose members all offer patent indemnification. Hey! We could go back to using ARC! ;-) -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
Bruce, This is big news - has anyone checked to see if the agreement for the OIN is in perpetuity? Or is their agreement to not pursue patents only for as long as they are members? - Luke On 3/30/07 10:43 AM, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > Here is a surprising article about how Oracle has made open source > projects, like PostgreSQL, safe from claims of infringing Oracle > patents: > > http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=A0F5F220-5940-470D-8564-CEA7E2D > 2B954. Oracle, like IBM, Sony, RedHat, and Novell, is now a member of > > Oracle, like IBM, Sony, RedHat, and Novell, is now a member of the Open > Invention Network, whose members all offer patent indemnification.
Luke Lonergan wrote: > Bruce, > > This is big news - has anyone checked to see if the agreement for the OIN is > in perpetuity? Or is their agreement to not pursue patents only for as long > as they are members? > > I'm sure they would be estopped from enforcing a patent against someone who relied on the assurance while they were a member, so I doubt this distinction matters. Otherwise it becomes worthless. cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Luke Lonergan wrote: >> Bruce, >> >> This is big news - has anyone checked to see if the agreement for the >> OIN is >> in perpetuity? Or is their agreement to not pursue patents only for >> as long >> as they are members? >> >> > I'm sure they would be estopped from enforcing a patent against someone > who relied on the assurance while they were a member, so I doubt this > distinction matters. Otherwise it becomes worthless. Either way, we should consider, not considering that this is actually news. Let us not be enticed by the opportunity that likely has strings attached. Joshua D. Drake > > cheers > > andrew > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
Luke Lonergan wrote: > Bruce, > > This is big news - has anyone checked to see if the agreement for the OIN is > in perpetuity? Or is their agreement to not pursue patents only for as long > as they are members? I would be worried if I were you (or Joshua Drake for that matter): does the agreement apply to commercial companies deriving products from PostgreSQL as well? Note that in the case of most projects, which are licensed under the GNU GPL, this is not an issue, because any derivative must also be GNU GPL. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Luke Lonergan wrote:
>> Bruce,
>>
>> This is big news - has anyone checked to see if the agreement for the OIN is
>> in perpetuity? Or is their agreement to not pursue patents only for as long
>> as they are members?
>
> I would be worried if I were you (or Joshua Drake for that matter): does
> the agreement apply to commercial companies deriving products from
> PostgreSQL as well? Note that in the case of most projects, which are
> licensed under the GNU GPL, this is not an issue, because any derivative
> must also be GNU GPL.
If Oracle truly (or IBM etc..) really was interested in "Protecting
Linux" or other FOSS software, they would put the patent in the public
domain.
The PostgreSQL project should not give any credence to these
announcements and should avoid all patent issues possible.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> If Oracle truly (or IBM etc..) really was interested in "Protecting
> Linux" or other FOSS software, they would put the patent in the public
> domain.
No, you miss the point of OIN. Doing the above might make FOSS
developers free from the particular patent, but it would do nothing
to defend against the vast sea of other patents out there.
The idea of OIN is to have a large patent pool that can be
counter-asserted against anyone who doesn't want to play nice.
Mutual assured destruction in the patent sphere, if you will.
According to the cited article, Oracle hasn't donated any of their
patents to the pool (if they had, that *would* be impressive) but
they have cross-licensed their patents with those held by OIN,
ie, they've promised to play nice.
I tend to agree that we shouldn't trust Oracle further than we can
throw them, so I'm not about to go out and start looking for Oracle
patents we could use, but this does seem to remove the threat of
being blindsided from that quarter. Now we just have to worry about
Microsoft ...
regards, tom lane
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> I would be worried if I were you (or Joshua Drake for that matter): does
> the agreement apply to commercial companies deriving products from
> PostgreSQL as well?
Interesting point. It's doubtless unwise to take this press release as
being an accurate guide to the terms of the license, but what it says
is
: According to the terms of the OIN license, the components covered by
: the agreement include not only the Linux kernel and associated GNU
: applications, but also other open source projects included in Linux
: distributions.
which to me says you're covered as long as your code is commonly
included in Linux distributions. Hence, proprietary derivatives
would *not* be covered. I'd guess that Oracle would have a hard
time suing for any patent violation embedded in the freely
distributed Postgres code, but any technique appearing only in
the proprietary extension would still be at risk.
IANAL, etc. I assume that EDB and Greenplum will have their
lawyers scrutinizing this deal on Monday morning ;-) ... I'd
be interested to hear what the experts' conclusion is.
regards, tom lane
<p><font size="2">This may have the nice side effect of pushing 'possibly patented' technologies into the FOSS realm, butagain I wonder what the duration/persistence of Oracle's committment is?<br /><br /> I think I will ask our lawyers toreview this.<br /><br /> - Luke<br /><br /> Msg is shrt cuz m on ma treo<br /><br /> -----Original Message-----<br />From: Tom Lane [<a href="mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us">mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us</a>]<br /> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 200702:55 PM Eastern Standard Time<br /> To: Alvaro Herrera<br /> Cc: Luke Lonergan; Bruce Momjian; PostgreSQL-development<br/> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Oracle indemnifies PostgreSQL on its patents<br /><br /> AlvaroHerrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:<br /> > I would be worried if I were you (or Joshua Drake forthat matter): does<br /> > the agreement apply to commercial companies deriving products from<br /> > PostgreSQLas well?<br /><br /> Interesting point. It's doubtless unwise to take this press release as<br /> being an accurateguide to the terms of the license, but what it says<br /> is<br /><br /> : According to the terms of the OIN license,the components covered by<br /> : the agreement include not only the Linux kernel and associated GNU<br /> : applications,but also other open source projects included in Linux<br /> : distributions.<br /><br /> which to me says you'recovered as long as your code is commonly<br /> included in Linux distributions. Hence, proprietary derivatives<br/> would *not* be covered. I'd guess that Oracle would have a hard<br /> time suing for any patent violationembedded in the freely<br /> distributed Postgres code, but any technique appearing only in<br /> the proprietaryextension would still be at risk.<br /><br /> IANAL, etc. I assume that EDB and Greenplum will have their<br/> lawyers scrutinizing this deal on Monday morning ;-) ... I'd<br /> be interested to hear what the experts' conclusionis.<br /><br /> regards, tom lane<br /><br /></font>
On Sun, April 1, 2007 01:32, Tom Lane wrote: > The idea of OIN is to have a large patent pool that can be > counter-asserted against anyone who doesn't want to play nice. > Mutual assured destruction in the patent sphere, if you will. And from the participants' point of view, I suppose the big attraction must be that they do away with a threat to their patents. If you have a patent that matches what some open project (not worth suing) has been doing for the past few years, then anyone else you might want to sue about the patent could point to that project and say "if you have a valid patent, why didn't you say something when they infringed it?" Jeroen
Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote: > On Sun, April 1, 2007 01:32, Tom Lane wrote: > > > The idea of OIN is to have a large patent pool that can be > > counter-asserted against anyone who doesn't want to play nice. > > Mutual assured destruction in the patent sphere, if you will. > > And from the participants' point of view, I suppose the big attraction > must be that they do away with a threat to their patents. If you have a > patent that matches what some open project (not worth suing) has been > doing for the past few years, then anyone else you might want to sue about > the patent could point to that project and say "if you have a valid > patent, why didn't you say something when they infringed it?" You can be as selective as you want about enforcing patents --- copyright/trademark enforcement does require consistent enforcement. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
All, > You can be as selective as you want about enforcing patents --- > copyright/trademark enforcement does require consistent enforcement. I'm not sure that's the case, actually. Of course, I'm not an attorney ... but then, neither are you. What is it about -hackers that people love to speculate about code they don't understand (law)? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
what can't be purchased and silenced, should be killed with rain of law suits. Microsoft does it, novell does it, sco does it, and oracle too.
Josh, On 3/31/07 11:01 AM, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > The PostgreSQL project should not give any credence to these > announcements and should avoid all patent issues possible. I think that's appropriate - the structure of the OIN looks like it's: 1) focused on Linux 2) designed to foster a patent pool of contributed patents The license agreement isn't available online, so there's little to review. What's more - the press release is vague enough that we're not sure if they signed the same agreement everyone signed or if they made changes to the agreement. In any case, I'm not sure what this really means. Perhaps someone from OIN can enlighten us. - Luke