916c0553e164269

4 ms·

1.
by 916c0553e164269 1y ago
Clarification: As I see it, postgresql already includes a small amount of Apache 2.0 licensed code. So it’s not as big an issue as I originally thought. https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Apostgres%2Fpostgres%20apa... examp
2.
by 916c0553e164269 1y ago
> since postgres would need to include the Apache license imho: given that postgres has many corporate forks and contributors from different companies, mixing apache 2.0 and postgresql licenses isn’t ideal - it complicates the legal pict
3.
by 916c0553e164269 1y ago
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
4.
by 916c0553e164269 1y ago
Appreciate the intent! For practical adoption, especially in larger orgs, OSI-approved licences are much easier to get through legal review than custom ones.
5.
by 916c0553e164269 1y ago
"The differences between OrioleDB and Neon" ( June 20, 2025 ) https://www.orioledb.com/blog/orioledb-neon-differences
6.
by 916c0553e164269 1y ago
Apache 2.0 has a better patent clause - against hostile IP claims, so tax dispute is not terminate the OrioleDB license: "If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) all
7.
by 916c0553e164269 1y ago
from the blog: "The patent is intended as a shield, not a sword, to protect Open Source from hostile IP claims." vs. the current license: "IF ANY LITIGATION IS INSTITUTED AGAINST SUPABASE, INC. BY A LICENSEE OF THIS SOF