On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 08:29:08AM +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > Thank you for supporting me, Andres. And please don't mind, David. I > don't think you are attacking me. I understand your concern and that > you are also trying to protect PostgreSQL. > > On the other hand, I think TPL seems less defensive. I read > in some report that Apache License and some other open source > licenses were created partly due to lack of patent description > in BSD and GPLv2. > > How can we assure you? How about attaching something like the > following to relevant patches or on our web site? > > [Excerpt from Red Hat Patent Promise] Red Hat intends Our Promise to > be irrevocable (except as stated herein), and binding and enforceable > against Red Hat and assignees of, or successors to, Red Hat’s > patents (and any patents directly or indirectly issuing from Red > Hat’s patent applications). As part of Our Promise, if Red Hat > sells, exclusively licenses, or otherwise assigns or transfers > patents or patent applications to a party, we will require the party > to agree in writing to be bound to Our Promise for those patents > and for patents directly or indirectly issuing on those patent > applications. We will also require the party to agree in writing to so > bind its own assignees, transferees, and exclusive licensees.
Notice this makes no mention of what happens to the patents if the company goes bankrupt. My guess is that in such a situation the company would have no control over who buys the patents or how they are used. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
