On January 11, 2005 07:42 am, Robert Treat wrote:
> 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.
You're right of course, why be critical of Pervasive when so many others
already do it? Except for the small matter that I'm right too. Somebody in
the community currently controls the PostgreSQL trademark name and should
get off his duff and make out the correct paper work by explicitly assigning
permission. Does anybody remember that goof in california that sued Linus of
using 'his' trademark'?
robert b