On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:32:34AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-07-23 10:27:10 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:08:32AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2018-07-23 09:56:47 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > You are not thinking this through. > > Err. > > > > It depends if the patent owner retains some un-released/un-shared > > rights to the patent, e.g. patent can only be used by others in > > GPL-licensed code. > > Please point me to any sort of reference that bancruptcy simply > terminates perpetual irrevocable license agreements; that's simply not > the case afaik. Even if the patent rights are liquidated, the new owner > would be bound by the terms. > Also, as I pointed out above, how would the same not be applicable to > the code itself?
I am explaining a case where some of the patent rights are given to a group, but some rights are retained by the company. They cannot change the rights given, but can change how the company-controlled rights are used. I am just guessing since I have not heard of any such cases, but I know that companies have limited rights now their assets are sold. -- 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 +
