From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Oracle indemnifies PostgreSQL on its patents |
Date: | 2007-03-31 18:54:51 |
Message-ID: | 7531.1175367291@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-31 19:00:40 | Re: CIC and deadlocks |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-31 18:32:18 | Re: Oracle indemnifies PostgreSQL on its patents |