| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Oracle indemnifies PostgreSQL on its patents |
| Date: | 2007-04-02 17:06:18 |
| Message-ID: | 200704021706.l32H6Id03814@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-04-02 17:13:15 | Re: Oracle indemnifies PostgreSQL on its patents |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-02 16:41:36 | Re: Implicit casts to text |