Kudos to your legal team for working with you to provide a quick response. Licensing grants are momentous decisions it exceeds my expectations for you to act within the span of hours.

This change looks much better, thanks!

> "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.)

Thanks for the quick fix.

The whole patents kerfuffle with Facebook was about a larger issue with their patent grant. Critically the issue was that it practically stopped you from suing Facebook for any patent issues (not just those granted for React, which would be more like the standard reactive termination clause), including counter-suits. Here is the key text from their patent license:

    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.

And so that was a fairly justified reaction IMHO. Funnily enough, it seems that the license written by Supabase has the same issue -- I suspect this might just be the "default approach" for patent lawyers.

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.

Agree with this—the A/V media system has some of the most active patent trolls around. https://aomedia.org/license/patent-license/

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).

The current license is PostgreSQL (which is OSI approved)

We could also change to MIT/Apache but we feel PostgreSQL is more appropriate given our intentions to upstream the code

we will have something to announce in this space within a few months

(if the atlasgo team are reading this feel free to reach out too)