On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:59:20AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2018-07-23 16:32:55 +0200, David Fetter wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 06:31:14AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On July 23, 2018 6:25:42 AM PDT, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > > >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. > > > > > > It explicitly says irrevocable and successors. Why seems squarely > > > aimed at your concern. Bankruptcy wouldn't just invalidate that. > > > > Until this has been upheld in court, it's just a vague idea. > > To my knowledge this has long been settled. Which makes a lot of sense, > because this is relevant *far* beyond just open source. FWIW, in the US > it's explicit law, see https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/365 > subclause (n). Anyway, should we decide that this would be a good idea > as a policy matter, we'd *OBVIOUSLY* have to check in with lawyers to > see whether our understanding is correct. But that doesn't mean we > should just assume it's impossible without any sort of actual > understanding.
You are saying that Red Hat's promise is part of the contract when they contributed that code --- I guess that interpretation is possible, but again, I am not sure. -- 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 +