On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 07:42 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 January 2005 06:56, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > That looks like clear infringement to me to claim that they ever could
> > have a trademark on the phrase "pervasive postgres"...
>
> Whose trademark would it infringe upon? Berkely's ? After all this community
> has no hold over the name Postgres. I also think that as long as they
> continue to use the terms "pervasive postgres" for thier product and
> "postgresql" for the community on a consistent basis, there should be much
> issue. Certainly no more than companies like postgresql inc and postgresql
> international and that company that sells mammoth postgresql and other
> examples
> ... we're a mixing pot on that end, and I think pervasive looks like
> they are trying to approach things above board, so I think we should give
> them as much helpful feedback as we can and be proud that an established
> player wants to be a part of this community.
Well spoken. I withdraw my criticisms and will act as you say.
--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs