Hi, I don't really want to discuss patent issues publically.
On 2015-10-30 04:47:35 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > However, while the license defines and uses "Derivative Works", it does > not mention that in the patent grant clause. I assume this means that > patent grants do not apply to derived works, meaning if code or ideas > were moved from Greenplum to Postgres (which is not Apache 2.0 > licensed), it would not have a patent grant. I talked to Greenplum staff > about this a few months ago and they did not dispute my analysis. The easiest thing would be to dual-licensce the code such contributions to postgres. That sounds quite possible to me. > Therefore, I caution people from viewing the Greenplum source code as > you might see patented ideas that could be later implemented in > Postgres, opening Postgres up to increased patent violation problems. I > am also concerned about existing community members who work for > Pivotal/Greenplum and therefore are required to view the patented source > code. Issues around this are much larger than patents. Any contribution done under employment has such risks. That's why the kernel has the signed-off-policy. Check the section about signed-off-by in https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches and simpler https://ltsi.linuxfoundation.org/developers/signed-process Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
