Обсуждение: Re: Promoting PostgreSQL to the world.
Burce, > > Oh! I was thinking of the money, actually. If they're going to give us > > % of sales, it has to go somewhere. > > I didn't think they had to give us money for using our logo. They're offering to. Didn't you read the e-mail? We'd be fools to turn down undesignated funds. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > Burce, > > > > Oh! I was thinking of the money, actually. If they're going to give us > > > % of sales, it has to go somewhere. > > > > I didn't think they had to give us money for using our logo. > > They're offering to. Didn't you read the e-mail? We'd be fools to turn down > undesignated funds. Yea, but are they offering because they want to, or because they think they have to? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce, > Yea, but are they offering because they want to, or because they think > they have to? Do you have something *against* raising money for the project? Geez, Bruce, where's your head at today? Look, if they start selling PostgreSQL t-shirts, presumably we're going to sell less of them ourselves. So if they're not going to give us a % of the revenue, I'd say turn them down. I have distinct hopes of raising money at conventions by selling t-shirts. But they are offering us a % of the revenue, without us having to ask. Why on earth would we tell them to take the logo and keep their money? -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > Bruce, > > > Yea, but are they offering because they want to, or because they think > > they have to? > > Do you have something *against* raising money for the project? Geez, Bruce, > where's your head at today? > > Look, if they start selling PostgreSQL t-shirts, presumably we're going to > sell less of them ourselves. So if they're not going to give us a % of the > revenue, I'd say turn them down. I have distinct hopes of raising money at > conventions by selling t-shirts. > > But they are offering us a % of the revenue, without us having to ask. Why > on earth would we tell them to take the logo and keep their money? The distinction is whether we are going to require companies to give us money to use our name or logo. If CP, SRA, or PostgreSQL, Inc. puts the logo on their box, is that OK? I think we need to decide how this is going to work long-term, not just in this case. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce, > The distinction is whether we are going to require companies to give us > money to use our name or logo. If CP, SRA, or PostgreSQL, Inc. puts the > logo on their box, is that OK? I think we need to decide how this is > going to work long-term, not just in this case. I'm not sure that's the issue here. It's quite possible -- likely, in fact -- that part of their merchandising plan is "A portion of the proceeds from this merchandise goes to support Open Source projects." It's certainly what *I* would do. I think you're making this a lot more complicated than it needs to be. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
> The distinction is whether we are going to require companies to give us
> money to use our name or logo. If CP, SRA, or PostgreSQL, Inc. puts the
> logo on their box, is that OK? I think we need to decide how this is
> going to work long-term, not just in this case.
But it does depend on the specific case in question.
The PostgreSQL brand should be treated carefully as those using it will
be seen as representatives of the project. We should not allow others to
just pick up the logo or name and run with it irregardless of past
experiences with that firm or person.
If RedHat, SRA, or others released a retail product under the PostgreSQL
name, we should:
1. Hold them to a certain quality standard
2. Ensure it is PostgreSQL code that the product is based upon and
not SQL Lite branded as PostgreSQL 8 (unlikely -- but possible)
3. Ensure they provide compensation by (for example) having a
minimum of N staff dedicated to improving the public code base
or marketing efforts for the life of that product.
Despite everything SRA has done in the past, if a new CEO came by and
said they were forking the project and taking all staff off the public
project, we should not allow them to continue use of the PostgreSQL
brand. This requires protecting it in the first place. SRA could not
have received blanket authorization to use the logo to start with.
Not only should we take a reasonable cut (in this case) but we should
require a certain quality level in the product they put our logo.
Nothing worse than having your logo on a T-Shirt that disintegrates
during the first wash.
Rod Taylor wrote: > > The distinction is whether we are going to require companies to give us > > money to use our name or logo. If CP, SRA, or PostgreSQL, Inc. puts the > > logo on their box, is that OK? I think we need to decide how this is > > going to work long-term, not just in this case. > > But it does depend on the specific case in question. > > The PostgreSQL brand should be treated carefully as those using it will > be seen as representatives of the project. We should not allow others to > just pick up the logo or name and run with it irregardless of past > experiences with that firm or person. > > If RedHat, SRA, or others released a retail product under the PostgreSQL > name, we should: > 1. Hold them to a certain quality standard > 2. Ensure it is PostgreSQL code that the product is based upon and > not SQL Lite branded as PostgreSQL 8 (unlikely -- but possible) > 3. Ensure they provide compensation by (for example) having a > minimum of N staff dedicated to improving the public code base > or marketing efforts for the life of that product. > > Despite everything SRA has done in the past, if a new CEO came by and > said they were forking the project and taking all staff off the public > project, we should not allow them to continue use of the PostgreSQL > brand. This requires protecting it in the first place. SRA could not > have received blanket authorization to use the logo to start with. Command Prompt doesn't doesn't have any staff contributing to the public project. Do we tell them they can't use the name "PostgreSQL"? That is just an example. There are tons of PostgreSQL usages out there that have no payback to the community. ConnX and dbexperts are good examples. > Not only should we take a reasonable cut (in this case) but we should > require a certain quality level in the product they put our logo. That is my point. Are we going to require a certain level of acceptable usage for someone to use the name? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 03:29:47PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Rod Taylor wrote: [snip] > > Despite everything SRA has done in the past, if a new CEO came by > > and said they were forking the project and taking all staff off > > the public project, we should not allow them to continue use of > > the PostgreSQL brand. This requires protecting it in the first > > place. SRA could not have received blanket authorization to use > > the logo to start with. > Command Prompt doesn't doesn't have any staff contributing to the > public project. Do we tell them they can't use the name > "PostgreSQL"? That is just an example. There are tons of > PostgreSQL usages out there that have no payback to the community. > ConnX and dbexperts are good examples. > > Not only should we take a reasonable cut (in this case) but we > > should require a certain quality level in the product they put our > > logo. > That is my point. Are we going to require a certain level of > acceptable usage for someone to use the name? I am not an intellectual property attorney, but...wait a minute. Is PostgreSQL a trademark? If it is, we need to defend it, or it lapses. An IP attorney can say how, but I don't think any of the rest of us is qualified to have an opinion on this without consulting one. Just my $.02. Cheers, D -- David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote!
> Command Prompt doesn't doesn't have any staff contributing to the public > project. Do we tell them they can't use the name "PostgreSQL"? That is > just an example. There are tons of PostgreSQL usages out there that > have no payback to the community. ConnX and dbexperts are good > examples. If their next release should have several security issues pass through bugtrack, it would be easy to confuse the two products and think that PostgreSQL proper has the problems. So yes, I would argue that Command Prompt should not be distributing a modified PostgreSQL under the PostgreSQL brand name. Calling it Mammoth Database and mentioning that it is based, in part, on PostgreSQL would be more appropriate.
Rod,
> So yes, I would argue that Command Prompt should not be distributing a
> modified PostgreSQL under the PostgreSQL brand name. Calling it Mammoth
> Database and mentioning that it is based, in part, on PostgreSQL would
> be more appropriate.
What if, on the other hand, they invite us to inspect it?
And it's not like CMD is a total non-contributor in the way dbExperts is.
While they're not patching modules to the main source, they've released
several add-ons as OSS. If I was going to yank the trademark chain on
anyone, it would be dbexperts.
However, Linux did *not* get where it is today by Linus prohibiting the use
of the name. We *should* send out letters to companies making sure that
they have a trademark notice for us ("PostgreSQL is a Registered
Trademark") ... but that opens up another sticky can o'worms, namely that the
trademark is filed for PostgreSQL Inc, not for the PGDG, which legally
doesn't exist.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
Bruce Momjian wrote: > That is my point. Are we going to require a certain level of > acceptable usage for someone to use the name? It's easy to shoot yourself in the foot that way. You may find that the next Debian release will contain a package "database whose name we are not allowed to use" and everything is stripped of logos and icons because they are not free to use. It has happened before.
On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 15:51, Josh Berkus wrote: > Rod, > > > So yes, I would argue that Command Prompt should not be distributing a > > modified PostgreSQL under the PostgreSQL brand name. Calling it Mammoth > > Database and mentioning that it is based, in part, on PostgreSQL would > > be more appropriate. > > What if, on the other hand, they invite us to inspect it? > > And it's not like CMD is a total non-contributor in the way dbExperts is. > While they're not patching modules to the main source, they've released > several add-ons as OSS. If I was going to yank the trademark chain on > anyone, it would be dbexperts. Yes, your right. CMD has been good for the main group. I simply want to ensure that there is enough differentiation in naming convention that the unwashed masses will not confuse the 2. The FreeBSD group decided long ago that in order for it to hold the FreeBSD name, it must go through the FreeBSD processes as a part of the group. In this case, the FreeBSD name demonstrated quality that you could trust was tested, open, etc. This is why there is TrustedBSD (prior to re-integration with the FreeBSD project) and DragonFlyBSD rather than Trusted FreeBSD and FreeBSD Experimental. I think that was a wise decision as there is very little confusion as to what the FreeBSD group has been responsible for or supports. What does the name "PostgreSQL Replicator" tell someone who finds it in Googles results? I'm guilty of doing the same thing with PostgreSQL Autodoc.
On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 15:56, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > That is my point. Are we going to require a certain level of > > acceptable usage for someone to use the name? > > It's easy to shoot yourself in the foot that way. You may find that the > next Debian release will contain a package "database whose name we are > not allowed to use" and everything is stripped of logos and icons > because they are not free to use. It has happened before. I think that is different though. They're simply redistributing exactly what we gave them (compiled, but still the same). We already have issues with users adding patches to the database, like CONNECT BY, which have a number of bugs. If Debian applied those patches by default and a flood of Debian users started complaining about our buggy software what would we do? If it would be to tell them they're not using an official release, then it shouldn't have the PostgreSQL name on it.
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, David Fetter wrote: > I am not an intellectual property attorney, but...wait a minute. Is > PostgreSQL a trademark? Has been for over a year now, and is held in trust by PostgreSQL, Inc ... and we've been through the whole lawyer route ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
> And it's not like CMD is a total non-contributor in the way dbExperts
> is. While they're not patching modules to the main source, they've
> released several add-ons as OSS. If I was going to yank the trademark
> chain on anyone, it would be dbexperts.
Agreed ... CP has done various things to contribute to the project ...
> However, Linux did *not* get where it is today by Linus prohibiting the
> use of the name. We *should* send out letters to companies making sure
> that they have a trademark notice for us ("PostgreSQL is a Registered
> Trademark") ... but that opens up another sticky can o'worms, namely
> that the trademark is filed for PostgreSQL Inc, not for the PGDG, which
> legally doesn't exist.
Doesn't make it any less of a Registered Trademark though ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Rod Taylor wrote: > I think that is different though. They're simply redistributing > exactly what we gave them (compiled, but still the same). Except that there is a 452 kB diff file that comes along with it. > We already have issues with users adding patches to the database, > like CONNECT BY, which have a number of bugs. If Debian applied those > patches by default and a flood of Debian users started complaining > about our buggy software what would we do? If it would be to tell > them they're not using an official release, then it shouldn't have > the PostgreSQL name on it. You can check the archives for what we have done in the past, because there have been exactly analogous cases already. But I would think that if the postgresql package had to be renamed we would have even more traffic about that, so it's not necessarily an improvement. If you consider the state of free operating system distributions (not only Linux) today, then it's obvious that if all packages had restrictions like you propose, then nothing could get distributed anymore under a recognizable name, which would quickly end up being the suicide of the free software community.
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > The distinction is whether we are going to require companies to give us > money to use our name or logo. If CP, SRA, or PostgreSQL, Inc. puts the > logo on their box, is that OK? I think we need to decide how this is > going to work long-term, not just in this case. I don't think there should ever be a *requirement* ... it does us good to see it around more, as it promotes us ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 16:47, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Rod Taylor wrote: > > I think that is different though. They're simply redistributing > > exactly what we gave them (compiled, but still the same). > > Except that there is a 452 kB diff file that comes along with it. I know they back port security fixes and significant bug fixes -- but I wouldn't expect there to be that much code for those. Do you know what it contains?
Rod Taylor wrote: > On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 15:56, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > That is my point. Are we going to require a certain level of > > > acceptable usage for someone to use the name? > > > > It's easy to shoot yourself in the foot that way. You may find that the > > next Debian release will contain a package "database whose name we are > > not allowed to use" and everything is stripped of logos and icons > > because they are not free to use. It has happened before. > > I think that is different though. They're simply redistributing exactly > what we gave them (compiled, but still the same). Uh, one linux distribution add an option to pg_hba.conf. We only found out when someone reported it as not working, so that redistribution thing isn't 100%. > > We already have issues with users adding patches to the database, like > CONNECT BY, which have a number of bugs. If Debian applied those patches > by default and a flood of Debian users started complaining about our > buggy software what would we do? If it would be to tell them they're not > using an official release, then it shouldn't have the PostgreSQL name on > it. Sure, we tell them and they know it. The idea that somehow we are going to get a bad name seems a minor risk compared to the management nightmare of trying to certify everything. If we certify it and it is bad, we really have a problem. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > The distinction is whether we are going to require companies to give us > > money to use our name or logo. If CP, SRA, or PostgreSQL, Inc. puts the > > logo on their box, is that OK? I think we need to decide how this is > > going to work long-term, not just in this case. > > I don't think there should ever be a *requirement* ... it does us good to > see it around more, as it promotes us ... Yea, that is my feeling. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073