I’ll revisit this with legal to try make it clearer.
Our intentions here are clear - if people have examples that we can follow we will do what we can to make this irrevocable (even to the extent of donating the patent if/when the community are ready to bear the cost of the maintainance)
https://github.com/orioledb/orioledb/pull/558
It is now Apache 2.0 which grants patent rights and can be re-licensed to PostgreSQL when the code is upstreamed. I'll amend the blog to make that clearer.
> "It is now Apache 2.0 which grants patent rights and can be re-licensed to PostgreSQL when the code is upstreamed."
It’s worth double-checking the relicensing angle. Imho: you can only relicense your own code. Any 3rd party contribution stays under apache 2.0 unless the author explicitly agrees.
So a full switch to postgresql license is only possible if every contributor signs off. That usually means having a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) in place up front.
And ethically, contributors should already know their work might be relicensed under "postgresql terms" later - otherwise it's a surprise change for the community.
ps: if the plan is serious, do the legal homework early and gather consents now, so upstreaming to postgresql doesn’t fail later because a few open-source contributors (who aren’t supabase/orioledb employees) are unreachable.)
https://engineering.fb.com/2017/09/22/web/relicensing-react-...
The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice,
for anyone that makes any claim (including by filing any lawsuit, assertion or
other action) alleging (a) direct, indirect, or contributory infringement or
inducement to infringe any patent: (i) by Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or
affiliates, whether or not such claim is related to the Software, (ii) by any
party if such claim arises in whole or in part from any software, product or
service of Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, whether or not
such claim is related to the Software, or (iii) by any party relating to the
Software; or (b) that any right in any patent claim of Facebook is invalid or
unenforceable.
However, MIT has _no_ patent protections and is strictly worse than almost any license with some patent protections for users included. The modern landscape of software patent trolls is far less insane than it was in the 90s but I would really think twice about using something that is likely patented under a license other than Apache-2.0, MPLv2, or GPLv3.
The relevant patent license is the following:
> 1.3. Defensive Termination. If any Licensee, its Affiliates, or its agents initiates patent litigation or files, maintains, or voluntarily participates in a lawsuit against another entity or any person asserting that any Implementation infringes Necessary Claims, any patent licenses granted under this License directly to the Licensee are immediately terminated as of the date of the initiation of action unless 1) that suit was in response to a corresponding suit regarding an Implementation first brought against an initiating entity, or 2) that suit was brought to enforce the terms of this License (including intervention in a third-party action by a Licensee).
For practical adoption, especially in larger orgs, OSI-approved licences are much easier to get through legal review than custom ones.
We could also change to MIT/Apache but we feel PostgreSQL is more appropriate given our intentions to upstream the code
That's just not true. Your license[0] adds a clause to the Postgresql license[1]. This makes it a different license, which by extension also means it isn't OSI approved.
It's the same with the BSD licenses[2]: the 4-clause one is OSI-approved, whereas the 3-clause one is not. Turns out that one additional "all advertising must display the following acknowledgement" clause was rather important - and so is your lawsuit clause.
[0]: https://github.com/orioledb/orioledb?tab=License-1-ov-file
[1]: https://github.com/postgres/postgres?tab=License-1-ov-file
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#4-clause_license_...
https://github.com/orioledb/orioledb/pull/558
The code is now Apache 2.0 which grants patent rights and can be re-licensed to PostgreSQL when the code is upstreamed. I'll amend the blog to make that clearer
Anyway, I'm not sure this is true. Having a separate software license + secondary patent grant license is very very common in open source projects where patent trolls are common. See e.g. https://aomedia.org/about/legal/
I would just put them in separate files and then you're good to go.
But I am not sure if the first exemption is necessarily a good thing. The Apache License, Version 2.0 is broader in what may be grounds for patent licence termination. So it is a better deterrent against patent trolls (even if that means some legitimate patent claims are also discouraged).
I hope you can look at the Apache 2 patent grant as a better clause- or even adopt something like Google's Additional IP License found here- https://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/, which doesn't modify the open source license but instead adds an additional grant as a separate license.
Supabase is doing great work, thank you!
https://opensource.org/license/ms-pl-html
Microsoft used it a ton, until they eventually just made everything open-source fall under the MIT license.
Some people will still be angry about it (I got a downvote for just mentioning it elsewhere on this thread) but as the person who built your software, you have every right to license your software as you deem necessary. There is a cost to what you've built and you have no true obligation to give everything for free.
On that note, as far as I can remember the MS-PL is OSI approved already.
(if the atlasgo team are reading this feel free to reach out too)
For example, if Supabase failed to pay a vendor that happened to use OrioleDB they wouldn't be able to sue you for damages without compromising their stack. That's uncool.
My take-away from the Facebook/React license issue was that the community agrees this violates the spirit of FOSS and invalidates claiming to be open source (at least OSI-approved), with many taking offense to the punitive nature of the clause.
Granted Facebook was in a position to see litigation over a lot more reasons.
"If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed."
On violation the Apache 2.0 license terminates the patent license. I might be mistaken, but that reads an awful lot like you're still allowed to use the software provided you do so in a way which doesn't violate the patent.
On the other hand, the OrioleDB license seems to terminate the entire license - so the way I read this it would include parts of the software which aren't covered under the patent itself.
It starts off nice with the usual:
> PERMISSION TO USE, COPY, MODIFY, AND DISTRIBUTE THIS SOFTWARE AND ITS DOCUMENTATION FOR ANY PURPOSE, WITHOUT FEE, AND WITHOUT A WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS HEREBY GRANTED
.. but then there's the:
> HEREBY GRANTS A (..) LICENSE TO UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 10,325,030 TO MAKE, HAVE MADE, USE, HAVE USED, OFFER TO SELL, OFFERED TO SELL, SELL, SOLD, IMPORT INTO THE UNITED STATES, IMPORTED INTO THE UNITED STATES, AND OTHERWISE TRANSFER THIS SOFTWARE
.. which to me seems to be missing some kind of "modify" clause? Sure, it seems like you're allowing me to distribute it as-is the way a store like Amazon distributes boxes, but what happens when I start modifying the code and distributing those modifications? Is it still "this software", or has it become a derivative? Is the license I get to that patent even sublicensable? What happens to users of a fork when the forkee sues Supabase: do they also by extension lose their patent license?
The GPLv2, for example, has a clause stating that "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor" which makes it very clear what happens. If you're adding a poison pill to open-source code, you really shouldn't be this sloppy: it should be painfully obvious to every reader what the implications are, or nobody will ever risk using it.
GPLv3 has text about this in (s)11, MPLv2 has (s)2.3, and Apache-2.0 has s(3). GPLv2 doesn't have an explicit patent grant (and while some folks have argued that it has an implicit one that is just as good, I think the general consensus is that GPLv2 is not immune to patent trolls). All of them still allow you to make modifications but they do not guarantee that some other patents will not be infringed by your modifications and open you up to patent lawsuits (even from the same entity).
Assuming a lawyer wrote this, this is probably part of the reason for it. But it does feel a little sloppy, a separate patent license with clear terms would probably be more preferable.
Use as a shield would mean limiting it to patent litigation against a user of the software.
It also only covers litigation against Supabase - it does not provide a shield against litigation against OrioleDB users.