Subject: Re: Promoting PostgreSQL to the world.

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:55:01 -0400 (EDT)

Hey, www guys, here is a merchandizing request.  Thanks.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federico Lara wrote:
> Hello Mr.Momjian,
> I noticed on your site(http://store.pgsql.com/)
> That you are selling "officially licensed PostgreSQL apparel".
> 
> In the next 2 months, my company (mayopi.com)is starting an
> online apparel and merchandise shop called "SourceWear" and are
> very interested in supporting the "PostgreSQL Global Development
> Group" with a percentage of the proceeds from sales of apparel
> and other merchandise containing the "PostgreSQL" logo(s).
> 
> Whom may I speak to in regards to obtaining the proper
> merchandising License from the "PostgreSQL Global Development
> Group". 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your attention and consideration,
> 
> 
> 
> Federico Lara ViCaDi
> CEO/Dream Weaver
> The Mayopi Co., LLC
> 1-877-476-6256
> [email-masked]
> www.mayopi.com
> 
> 

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  [email-masked]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:32:53 -0700

Bruce,

> Hey, www guys, here is a merchandizing request.  Thanks.

I don't think the Web list is appropriate for this ... I'll take it to Core 
and Foundation.    If we're not hosting it, what does merchandizing have to 
do with the WWW?

-- 
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:00:16 -0400 (EDT)

> and Foundation.    If we're not hosting it, what does merchandizing have to 

It is use of the logo, which I thought was under www control, but maybe
not.  Who is the foundation anyway?  They are just for marketing.  Do
they control the logo?

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:15:07 -0700

Bruce,

> not.  Who is the foundation anyway?  They are just for marketing.  Do

Oh!  I was thinking of the money, actually.  If they're going to give us  % of 
sales, it has to go somewhere.

-- 
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:26:37 -0400 (EDT)

> sales, it has to go somewhere.

I didn't think they had to give us money for using our logo.

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:27:11 +0200

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> It is use of the logo, which I thought was under www control, but
> maybe not.  Who is the foundation anyway?  They are just for
> marketing.  Do they control the logo?

The question what copyright and trademark licenses, if any, the logo has 
would be useful to resolve.  As I recall it, it was originally only 
used by PostgreSQL, Inc.  What kind of permission, if any, do we have 
from them?

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:29:16 -0700

Burce,

> > Oh!  I was thinking of the money, actually.  If they're going to give us 
> > % of sales, it has to go somewhere.
>

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

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:38:41 -0400 (EDT)

> They're offering to.  Didn't you read the e-mail?   We'd be fools to turn down 

Yea, but are they offering because they want to, or because they think
they have to?

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:44:56 -0700

Bruce,

> Yea, but are they offering because they want to, or because they think

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

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:56:39 -0400 (EDT)

> 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.

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:45:58 -0700

Bruce,

> 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

---

From: Rod Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:54:26 -0400

> 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.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:29:47 -0400 (EDT)

> 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.

> 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?

---

From: David Fetter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:40:37 -0700

> 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 [email-masked] http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100   mobile: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!

---

From: Rod Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:44:14 -0400

> have no payback to the community.  ConnX and dbexperts are good

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.

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:51:15 -0700

Rod,

> Database and mentioning that it is based, in part, on PostgreSQL would

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

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 21:56:22 +0200

> 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.

---

From: Rod Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:16:36 -0400

> 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.

---

From: Rod Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:21:28 -0400

> 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.

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:41:48 -0300 (ADT)

> used by PostgreSQL, Inc.  What kind of permission, if any, do we have

Same as has always been giving ... feel free to use it unless for
malicious purposes ...

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [email-masked]           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:42:16 -0300 (ADT)

> I didn't think they had to give us money for using our logo.

Nope, they don't, they were offering to give it, which should, in reality,
go to the marketing efforts of Josh and gang ...

----

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:43:40 -0300 (ADT)

> 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 ...

----

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:46:19 -0300 (ADT)

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, David Fetter wrote:

> 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 ...

----

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 22:47:54 +0200

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.

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:48:11 -0300 (ADT)

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 ...

----

---

From: Rod Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:30:10 -0400

> 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?

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 22:06:46 -0400 (EDT)

> 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%.

> using an official release, then it shouldn't have the PostgreSQL name on

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.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 22:07:35 -0400 (EDT)

> see it around more, as it promotes us ...

Yea, that is my feeling.