From: Nico Williams [mailto:nico@cryptonector.com]
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 10:20:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > It's entirely possible to dual license contributions and everything. Why
> > are you making such aggressive statements about a, so far, apparently
> > good faith engagement?
>
> One problem is that many contributors would not want to be tainted by
> knowledge of the patents in question (since that leads to triple
> damages).
>
> How would you protect contributors and core developers from tainting?
IIUC, you are concerned about the possibility that PG developers would read the patent document (not the PG source
code),and unconsciously use the patented algorithm for other software that's not related to PostgreSQL. That would
onlybe helped by not reading the patent document... BTW, are you relieved the current PostgreSQL doesn't contain any
patentedcode? As far as I know, PostgreSQL development process doesn't have a step to check patent and copyright
infringement.
> One possible answer is that you wouldn't. But that might reduce the
> size of the community, or lead to a fork.
Yes, that's one unfortunate future, which I don't want to happen of course. I believe PostgreSQL should accept patent
forfurther evolution, because PostgreSQL is now a popular, influential software that many organizations want to join.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa