On Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 19:01 Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> Hi, > > On 2018-07-27 11:15:00 -0500, Nico Williams wrote: > > Even assuming you can't change the PG license, you could still: > > > > - require disclosure in contributions > > That really has no upsides, except poison the area. Either we reject > the patch and people doing so can reasonably be expected to know about > the patents, making further contributions by them worse. Or we accept > the patch, and the listed patents make the commercial offerings harder, > further development more dubious, readers can reasonably be concerned > about being considered do know about the patents in independent > projects. > What about just requiring a patent license that grants all rights necessary to fully enjoy the copyright license? That avoids the need to change the license fomally. And it would just clarify that we expect that patents do NOT change the license. Not that I expect there would be takers.... > > Greetings, > > Andres Freund >
