Hi,

I just read about this IBM-patent-issue at www.heise.de. IBM grants this
patens to all projects, which follow one of the licenses, which are approved
by the open-source-initiative. And the BSD-license is as far as I see
approved (I found "New BSD license").

When releasing commercial closed-source-variants of postgresql this
BSD-license stays intact, so the use of these patents in postgresql seems ok.


Tommi Mäkitalo

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

Oops! t.maekitalo@epgmbh.de (Tommi Maekitalo) was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> Hi,
>
> I just read about this IBM-patent-issue at www.heise.de. IBM grants
> this patens to all projects, which follow one of the licenses, which
> are approved by the open-source-initiative. And the BSD-license is
> as far as I see approved (I found "New BSD license").
>
> When releasing commercial closed-source-variants of postgresql this
> BSD-license stays intact, so the use of these patents in postgresql
> seems ok.

Actually, the latter isn't so.

If Mammoth or Pervasive or such release their own release of
PostgreSQL, nothing has historically mandated that they make that
release available under the BSD license.

Presumably acceptance of the patent would change that.

You and I might not have individual objections to this situation, but
one or another of the companies putting together PostgreSQL releases
very well might.
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "gmail.com")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/oses.html
"If you were plowing a field, which would you rather use? Two strong
oxen or 1024 chickens?" -- Seymour Cray

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Christopher Browne wrote:

> Actually, the latter isn't so.
>
> If Mammoth or Pervasive or such release their own release of
> PostgreSQL, nothing has historically mandated that they make that
> release available under the BSD license.
>
> Presumably acceptance of the patent would change that.
>
> You and I might not have individual objections to this situation, but
> one or another of the companies putting together PostgreSQL releases
> very well might.

But, there is nothing stop'ng them from replacing the ARC code with their
own variant though ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> >Actually, the latter isn't so.
> >
> >If Mammoth or Pervasive or such release their own release of
> >PostgreSQL, nothing has historically mandated that they make that
> >release available under the BSD license.
> >
> >Presumably acceptance of the patent would change that.
> >
> >You and I might not have individual objections to this situation, but
> >one or another of the companies putting together PostgreSQL releases
> >very well might.
>
> But, there is nothing stop'ng them from replacing the ARC code with
> their own variant though ...

Not only that, I'd go further and say that they have a duty to either
do that or pay someone to do it. They are, after all, the entities
that probably care about the situation the most.

This type of situation seems to me to be one that has to be examined
from a "greatest good" point of view. If IBM were to allow all open
source projects to make free use of a patent (thus exposing only those
entities which sell commercial versions under a non-open-source
license to risk), then the PG group might be faced with the tradeoff
of using a superior but patented (though free for open source use)
algorithm, or using a possibly inferior but unencumbered one. I'd
wager that the vast majority of PostgreSQL users received their copy
via the open source license. Unless the encumbered algorithm is not
significantly superior to the unencumbered one, the "greater good" is
likely to be to make use of the patented algorithm and force the
non-open-source vendors to deal with removing the algorithm
themselves.


None of that really applies to the specific situation we're
discussing, however: the current ARC implementation is apparently not
showing itself to be a clearly superior approach, so some other
approach is probably warranted.


--
Kevin Brown kevin@sysexperts.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Am Samstag, 29. Januar 2005 23:32 schrieb Marc G. Fournier:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Christopher Browne wrote:
> > Actually, the latter isn't so.
> >
> > If Mammoth or Pervasive or such release their own release of
> > PostgreSQL, nothing has historically mandated that they make that
> > release available under the BSD license.
> >
> > Presumably acceptance of the patent would change that.
> >
> > You and I might not have individual objections to this situation, but
> > one or another of the companies putting together PostgreSQL releases
> > very well might.
>
> But, there is nothing stop'ng them from replacing the ARC code with their
> own variant though ...
>
And what if there are many more patented parts? If someone wants to have a
patent-free variant, he has to replace big parts of postgresql? That wouldn't
be good for postgresql. If there is a patent-problem, postgresql has to
remove it.

What I think about is the legal implications. Sorry, but I don't know BSD very
well. Does BSD really allow to remove this BSD-license and put his own, or
does BSD allow to release commercial closed-source-variants under the
BSD-license?

Tommi

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org