Re: Promoting PostgreSQL to the world.

From: Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Promoting PostgreSQL to the world.
Date: 2004-04-29 19:44:14
Message-ID: 1083267853.30065.371.camel@jester
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-www

> 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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-www by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2004-04-29 19:45:03 Re: First two requests for PUGs
Previous Message David Fetter 2004-04-29 19:40:37 Re: Promoting PostgreSQL to the world.