On 2018-07-23 09:56:47 -0400, Bruce Momjian 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: > > >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. > > > > It explicitly says irrevocable and successors. Why seems squarely aimed at > > your concern. Bankruptcy wouldn't just invalidate that. > > They can say whatever they want, but if they are bankrupt, what they say > doesn't matter much. My guess is that they would have to give their > patents to some legal entity that owns them so it is shielded from > bankrupcy.
Huh? Bancruptcy doesn't simply invalidate licenses which successors then can ignore. By that logic a license to use the code, like the PG license, would be just as ineffectual Greetings, Andres Freund
