Given this is a node that, it would appear, is going to be widely used is it possible to clarify and address where this node sits with respect to the Polkadot Patent, see here:
Specifically, at a minimum can a clear statement be made upfront in the documentation about the extent to which using such a node is infringing the patent.
Given this patent is granted through to late 2038, there is some sense making head room for things that might only emerge over time. A couple of ideas:
- Clearly state in the docs where this node sits wrt to the patent. Example: Is it possible to use the node in a configuration that is patent free?
- If it is maybe add a
"patent"feature now, even if it is effectively a no-op. And everything is patent free unless it is moved under that feature flag - this way Parity has to state explicitly what they consider to be covered by the patent. Or maybe you are told everything has to be moved under the"patent"feature flag, and running the node without the"patent"feature flag results in crickets/no-op. At least users would now be aware of what they are doing and don’t inadvertently violate Parity’s rights.
Hopefully that is clear. At the least, this should remove ambiguity, which is where the precautionary principle tends to lead people to be more averse than might be warranted.