From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Message-Id: <200710152220.l9FMKad02511@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: Approval process for news/events/training is
 broken
In-Reply-To: <47138DA3.7090801@postgresql.org>
To: Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:20:36 -0400 (EDT)
CC: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>,
	Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>,
	pgsql-www@postgresql.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Dave Page wrote:
> >>> Also, looking back at the news just added today, is "EnterpriseDB
> >>> Postgres"
> >>> considered a "postgresql family product" or a commercial one? Maybe a
> >>> guidance bullet on "downstream distributions"?
> >>
> >> It's certainly not commercial, but yes that does seem worth clarifying.
> > 
> > It depends on what you are meaning by "commercial". This is a common
> > problem amongst FOSS people. FOSS can be commercial. I would actually
> > argue that EnterpriseDB Postgres *is* commercial as it is backed and
> > supported by a *commercial* Enterprise.
> > 
> > The real question is, "is it proprietary". If it is even partially
> > closed source then it really doesn't belong in the "postgresql family
> > product" unless we also include MPP and Replicator.
> 
> You know what I mean :-). And all of EDB-Postgres is open source,
> including the funky little MySQL migrator tool in the latest builds.

Uh, doesn't the installer use a commercial product that isn't open
source?  Does requiring non-open source tools to build something make it
non-open source?  Postgres requires a C compiler that can be open or
closed source so I don't know if that helps clarify things.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +