| From: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Markus Wanner' <markus(dot)wanner(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | 'Andres Freund' <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 'Craig Ringer' <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents? |
| Date: | 2018-07-10 08:29:57 |
| Message-ID: | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1FA4A102@G01JPEXMBYT05 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: Markus Wanner [mailto:markus(dot)wanner(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com]
> equally sure there are well intended ones as well. For example, I'd
> expect patent pools (including the Open Invention Network, cited by the
> OP) to hire non-IANAL personnel who know Legalese well enough to setup
> valid contracts (between participating companies).
I think I'll consult Open Invention Network on this issue, since I haven't received any reply from SFLC.
> I certainly like the (future) patent holder coming forth to offer a
> grant a lot better than the one who doesn't (but still holds the
> patent). I'm missing the appreciation for that former strategy in this
> thread and fear we're setting a precedent for the latter one, instead.
Me too.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-07-10 08:30:20 | Re: [Tiny Debug Issue] Undefined Reference problem encountered during compile |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-07-10 08:29:32 | Re: Non-reserved replication slots and slot advancing |