IBM releases 500 patents
IBM has just announced they are waving all rights and providing access to 500
patents. In the list of 500 there are several that relate RDBMS and query
optimizations, it may be worth a look.
http://www.ibm.com/news/us/en/2005/01/patents.html
--
Darcy Buskermolen
Wavefire Technologies Corp.
ph: 250.717.0200
fx: 250.763.1759
http://www.wavefire.com
Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
IBM has just announced they are waving all rights and providing access to 500
patents. In the list of 500 there are several that relate RDBMS and query
optimizations, it may be worth a look.
Except in the event of a lawsuit.
J
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQLOn January 11, 2005 08:13 am, you wrote:
Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
IBM has just announced they are waving all rights and providing access to
500 patents. In the list of 500 there are several that relate RDBMS and
query optimizations, it may be worth a look.Except in the event of a lawsuit.
J
I've read the full patent release document
(http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/patents/pledgedpatents.pdf) and from what I
see there, IBM has made a commitment not to defend the patentents against
anybody who uses them in a supported OSS licensing scheme (those found on
opensourcelicence.org)
--
Darcy Buskermolen
Wavefire Technologies Corp.
ph: 250.717.0200
fx: 250.763.1759
http://www.wavefire.com
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:13:01AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
IBM has just announced they are waving all rights and providing access to
500 patents. In the list of 500 there are several that relate RDBMS and
query optimizations, it may be worth a look.Except in the event of a lawsuit.
And derived closed-source products like SRA's or CMD's Postgres
offerings would not be able to include whatever is covered by the patents.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[@]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"La rebeld�a es la virtud original del hombre" (Arthur Schopenhauer)
On January 11, 2005 08:32 am, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
On January 11, 2005 08:13 am, you wrote:
Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
IBM has just announced they are waving all rights and providing access
to 500 patents. In the list of 500 there are several that relate RDBMS
and query optimizations, it may be worth a look.Except in the event of a lawsuit.
J
I've read the full patent release document
(http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/patents/pledgedpatents.pdf) and from what
I see there, IBM has made a commitment not to defend the patentents against
anybody who uses them in a supported OSS licensing scheme (those found on
opensourcelicence.org)
Correction, make that http://opensource.org
--
Darcy Buskermolen
Wavefire Technologies Corp.
ph: 250.717.0200
fx: 250.763.1759
http://www.wavefire.com
On January 11, 2005 08:34 am, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:13:01AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
IBM has just announced they are waving all rights and providing access
to 500 patents. In the list of 500 there are several that relate RDBMS
and query optimizations, it may be worth a look.Except in the event of a lawsuit.
And derived closed-source products like SRA's or CMD's Postgres
offerings would not be able to include whatever is covered by the patents.
In that pg uses a BSD license, which is supported by OSO and which allows for:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
I can't see binary modified distros like those offred by CP and SRA would be
breaking this license.
--
Darcy Buskermolen
Wavefire Technologies Corp.
ph: 250.717.0200
fx: 250.763.1759
http://www.wavefire.com
Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
On January 11, 2005 08:34 am, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:13:01AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
IBM has just announced they are waving all rights and providing access
to 500 patents. In the list of 500 there are several that relate RDBMS
and query optimizations, it may be worth a look.Except in the event of a lawsuit.
And derived closed-source products like SRA's or CMD's Postgres
offerings would not be able to include whatever is covered by the patents.In that pg uses a BSD license, which is supported by OSO and which allows for:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer.* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
and/or other materials provided with the distribution.I can't see binary modified distros like those offred by CP and SRA would be
breaking this license.
The new distros have their own license on top of the existing one that
gives ownership to the company distributing it and requiring payment for
those using it, so they have a different license than BSD.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
They probaly released the informix database patents.
This is pertinent to us as several of them were interesting
implementations of things like the function manager.
--elein
Show quoted text
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:04:48AM -0800, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
IBM has just announced they are waving all rights and providing access to 500
patents. In the list of 500 there are several that relate RDBMS and query
optimizations, it may be worth a look.http://www.ibm.com/news/us/en/2005/01/patents.html
--
Darcy Buskermolen
Wavefire Technologies Corp.
ph: 250.717.0200
fx: 250.763.1759
http://www.wavefire.com---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:33:44 -0800,
Elein Mustain <elein@tulip.norcov.com> wrote:
They probaly released the informix database patents.
This is pertinent to us as several of them were interesting
implementations of things like the function manager.
From what I read of this, the way they released the patents isn't completely
compatible with BSD licenses.
You can get the list of patents from here:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog_comments.jspa?blog=384&entry=69779
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Wolff III [mailto:bruno@wolff.to]
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 10:29 AM
To: Elein Mustain
Cc: Darcy Buskermolen; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] IBM releases 500 patents
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:33:44 -0800,
Elein Mustain <elein@tulip.norcov.com> wrote:
They probaly released the informix database patents.
This is pertinent to us as several of them were interesting
implementations of things like the function manager.
From what I read of this, the way they released the patents isn't completely
compatible with BSD licenses.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Import Notes
Resolved by subject fallback
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 10:28:52AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:33:44 -0800,
Elein Mustain <elein@tulip.norcov.com> wrote:They probaly released the informix database patents.
This is pertinent to us as several of them were interesting
implementations of things like the function manager.From what I read of this, the way they released the patents isn't completely
compatible with BSD licenses.
Is the only concern the commercialized offerings of PostgreSQL? It seems
that commercial entities could either negotiate terms with IBM or help
maintain a 'patent-free' branch of PostgreSQL. Yes, sub-optimal and a
good amount of work, but depending on what's to be gained by utilizing
some of the patents it might still be better for PostgreSQL overall.
I don't know how useful the IP in the patents is, but I'd hate to see it
dismissed out-of-hand because of licensing difficulties that could be
overcome.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 08:04 -0800, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
IBM has just announced they are waving all rights and providing access to 500
patents. In the list of 500 there are several that relate RDBMS and query
optimizations, it may be worth a look.
FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
-Neil
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
Ugh. We could hope that the patent wouldn't be granted, but I think
it unlikely, unless Jan is aware of prior art (like a publication
predating the filing date). I fear we'll have to change or remove
that code.
regards, tom lane
FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent
application is still pending, although the USPTO site is alittle hard to grok):
How will this affect the release of 8.0?
Wasn't this implemented in the early stages of the 7.5 cycle, long before may 20?
... John
Import Notes
Resolved by subject fallback
"John Hansen" <john@geeknet.com.au> writes:
How will this affect the release of 8.0?
I don't think it needs to delay the release; the patent is only pending.
But we need to look into the problem.
regards, tom lane
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 01:15 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 01:15 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I fear we'll have to change or remove
that code.
At very least, ARC should not be further mentioned in any press release
or beta history files until we resolve where we are. There'll be less
need for a retraction if the buffer strategy is not publicised.
The code separation of bufmgr.c and freelist.c means that changes can be
done later without too much of a problem. Any required changes can be
made under the covers without external recall-notices or such.
Well, considering the BufMgrLock problems, it was likely that some
changes would need to be be made to that algorithm anyway.
ARC may be optimal in lab tests, but I'm beginning to think that it's
not optimal in multi-processing environments. It also takes no direct
account of the workload it is being asked to support, so ISTM that we
should be able to use workload hints, along the lines of
StrategyHintVacuum, to get a more responsive algorithm suited
specifically to PostgreSQL - which would be harder to claim rights on.
--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:14:31AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't think it needs to delay the release; the patent is only pending.
But we need to look into the problem.
What will you do if the patent is granted, 8.0 is out there with the
offending code, and you get a cease-and-desist letter from IBM
demanding the removal of all offending code from the Net? The code
would have to be yanked from CVS &c., in that case, no? (IANAL, but
I think I may consult with one.)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The fact that technology doesn't work is no bar to success in the marketplace.
--Philip Greenspun
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:14:31AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't think it needs to delay the release; the patent is only pending.
But we need to look into the problem.What will you do if the patent is granted, 8.0 is out there with the
offending code, and you get a cease-and-desist letter from IBM
demanding the removal of all offending code from the Net? The code
would have to be yanked from CVS &c., in that case, no? (IANAL, but
I think I may consult with one.)
We can modify the code slightly to hopefully avoid the patent. With the
US granting patents on even obvious ideas, I would think that most large
software projects, including commercial ones, already have tons of
patent violations in their code. Does anyone think otherwise?
However, I will grant that ARC is not an obvious idea.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073We can modify the code slightly to hopefully avoid the patent. With the
US granting patents on even obvious ideas, I would think that most large
software projects, including commercial ones, already have tons of
patent violations in their code. Does anyone think otherwise?However, I will grant that ARC is not an obvious idea.
Speaking from a commercial perspective, if the community has
known patent violating code within its source tree, the community
needs to remove and or modify as to not violate that patent
before any continued release.
The last thing I am sure that:
RedHat
Pervasive
SRA
Fufitsu
PgSQL, Inc.
and of course
Command Prompt
want is a call from IBM saying... hey we aren't going to go
after the community but you need to pay up.
The patent risk is just entirely too great and it can greatly
hurt the community as a whole.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQLOn Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:37:44PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
We can modify the code slightly to hopefully avoid the patent. With the
I guess what I'm very much worried about is that there is
potentially-infringing code there, we know about it, and we may press
ahead and release with it anyway. IBM would justifiably jump on us
for that as a result. What I simply don't know is what they can
require be done as a remedy. If merely modifying the code is good
enough, fine. But given how widely the code base will be
disseminated, I'm worried they might demand that we somehow track it
down and get rid of it. That would be a significant distraction, I
think.
US granting patents on even obvious ideas, I would think that most large
software projects, including commercial ones, already have tons of
patent violations in their code. Does anyone think otherwise?
First, that's hardly a justification, and second, they're not all
subject to inspection. Plus, this is a case where we _know_ about
the potential violation, and have had it pointed out to us, before
the code has been declared "released".
However, I will grant that ARC is not an obvious idea.
Precisely, or we wouldn't be pleased with the implementation.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what
you told them to. That actually seems sort of quaint now.
--J.D. Baldwin
