From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Reply-To: josh@agliodbs.com
Organization: Aglio Database Solutions
To: Rod Taylor <pg@rbt.ca>, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: Promoting PostgreSQL to the world.
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:51:15 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4
Cc: "pgsql-www@postgresql.org" <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>
References: <200404291929.i3TJTl201079@candle.pha.pa.us>
	<1083267853.30065.371.camel@jester>
In-Reply-To: <1083267853.30065.371.camel@jester>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200404291251.15453.josh@agliodbs.com>

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