Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending)patents?
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending)patents? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20180707190110.s5mnpdp57gzlwhvl@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending)patents? (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending)patents?
Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 2018-07-07 20:51:56 +0200, David Fetter wrote: > As to "dual license," that's another legal thicket in which we've been > wise not to involve ourselves. "Dual licensing" is generally used to > assert proprietary rights followed immediately by a demand for > payment. This is a thing we don't want to do, and it's not a thing we > should be enabling others to do as part of our project. If they wish > to do that, they're welcome to do it without our imprimatur. This is pure FUD. Obviously potential results of dual licensing depends on the license chosen. None of what you describe has anything to do with potential pieces of dual PG License / Apache 2.0 licensed code in PG, or anything similar. You could at any time choose to only use / redistribute postgres, including derivatives, under the rights either license permits. I think there's fair arguments to be made that we do not want to go fo for dual licensing with apache 2.0. Biggest among them that the current situation is the established practice. But let's have the arguments be real, not FUD. Andres
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: