On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 01:55:27PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 05/28/2013 11:32 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I think Simon has a good point, as VMWare has asserted patents on some
> > changes to their version of Postgres in the past, so if the copyright
>
> ... which I'll point out that they *didn't* contribute, and which may
> yet get resolved in a way that benefits the PostgreSQL community.
Right. Simon was just verifying that we were good with this new
feature, as it had a VMWare copyright and was on github --- totally
legitimate question.
> > mentions VMWare, we can't assume it is patent-free. Just the fact you
> > had to check with the VMware legal department verifies there is cause
> > for concern about things coming from VMWare.
>
> That seems rather like a catch-22 Bruce. If they don't check with the
> legal department, it's dangerous, but if they do check, it's dangerous?
>
> Presumably if they checked with the legal department, it's cleared. We
> should be wary of stuff contributed by company employees who *didn't* check.
My point is that there was no mention of a legal check in the original
posting, which prompted Simon to ask:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/519df910.4020...@vmware.com
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
