upvote

points

by 916c0553e16426910 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby kiwicopple10 hours ago|
[-]
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

reply
upvoteby crote9 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> The current license is PostgreSQL

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_...

reply
upvoteby kiwicopple7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
sorry about the confusion - I wasn't as involved in this process as I should have been. My fault. This is now fixed:

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

reply
upvoteby nightpool7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
(er, surely it's the other way around? the 3-clause one is OSI approved and the 4-clause one is not)

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.

reply
upvoteby joshuaissac7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I like how well-thought-out the licence revocation clause of the AOMedia patent licence is. It takes effect when a licensee sues over an implementation specifically over the relevant patent claims--so lawsuits unrelated to these patent claims are allowed (so if you infringe on other patents but also implement the licensed patent in the same implementation, the rights holder of the other patents can sue you over those claims without losing their licence)--and there is also a carve-out for counterclaims, and lawsuits to enforce this licence.

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).

reply
upvoteby nightpool6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Cypher in a sibling comment makes a good argument that this was the same logic (patent termination for legitimate, non-licensed patent claims) that got Facebook in trouble: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45199687
reply
upvoteby limagnolia8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The PostgreSQL license does not have a termination clause, you added that. I see that you are trying to use the PostgreSQL license as the basis and simply add the patent clause onto it, but it fundamentally changes the license.

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!

reply