From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents? |
Date: | 2018-07-26 13:51:54 |
Message-ID: | 26770.1532613114@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com> writes:
> What about adding an extra line to the license that indicates that the
> copyright owners also give all patent licenses which are both in their
> power to grant and also needed for exercise of the copyright license and
> require that new code contributions use this license with the extra clause.
There's been an awful lot of discussion in this thread that supposes that
we can change the Postgres license. Let me just point out very clearly
that no such thing is going to happen. There will be no changes, no
additions, no alternate licenses, period. To change the license, we'd
need the agreement of all current and past contributors, which is a
completely impractical thing even if there were fairly wide consensus
that a particular change is a good idea. Which there isn't.
Anyone who's not completely bored by this topic already would do well
to visit the list archives and read the last major discussion of changing
the license, which was in 2001 if memory serves. We decided it was
an impractical idea then, and it's only gotten more so with the passage
of time.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2018-07-26 14:01:38 | Re: Explain buffers wrong counter with parallel plans |
Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2018-07-26 12:51:53 | Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs |