Re: IBM patent
От | Tommi Maekitalo |
---|---|
Тема | Re: IBM patent |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200501310959.09099.t.maekitalo@epgmbh.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: IBM patent ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Am Samstag, 29. Januar 2005 23:32 schrieb Marc G. Fournier: > On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Christopher Browne wrote: > > Actually, the latter isn't so. > > > > If Mammoth or Pervasive or such release their own release of > > PostgreSQL, nothing has historically mandated that they make that > > release available under the BSD license. > > > > Presumably acceptance of the patent would change that. > > > > You and I might not have individual objections to this situation, but > > one or another of the companies putting together PostgreSQL releases > > very well might. > > But, there is nothing stop'ng them from replacing the ARC code with their > own variant though ... > And what if there are many more patented parts? If someone wants to have a patent-free variant, he has to replace big parts of postgresql? That wouldn't be good for postgresql. If there is a patent-problem, postgresql has to remove it. What I think about is the legal implications. Sorry, but I don't know BSD very well. Does BSD really allow to remove this BSD-license and put his own, or does BSD allow to release commercial closed-source-variants under the BSD-license? Tommi
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: