Subject: Re: Promoting PostgreSQL to the world.
From: Rod Taylor <pg@rbt.ca>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>,
	"pgsql-www@postgresql.org" <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <200404291929.i3TJTl201079@candle.pha.pa.us>
References: <200404291929.i3TJTl201079@candle.pha.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1083267853.30065.371.camel@jester>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:44:14 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> 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.