Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Who's a "Corporate Sponsor"?

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Who's a "Corporate Sponsor"?
Date: 2004-12-03 18:38:57
Message-ID: 200412031038.57335.josh@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
Folks,

We've been laying out a new "Corporate Sponsors" page on WWW for the new web 
site.  However, some debatable issues have arisen on who "qualifies" to be on 
the page.   We've agreed, there, on listing:

1) Any company that sponsors a PostgreSQL major contributor's time;
2) Any company that has contributed a feature or significant add-in since 
2000;
3) Any company which pays for or donates infrastructure resources for the 
project.

The issues that aren't clear are:
1) do all mirrors get listed?
2) does documentation "count" as much as code?
3) do add-ins count if they are completely externally hosted?
4) If yes to (3), do they still count if they are not OSS?

Since scrolling space on our web page is not exactly a scarce resource, I'm 
inclined to say "yes, yes, yes and no".   It benefits *us* to list as many 
companies as possible, because it shows how widely used and supported 
PostgreSQL is to potential new users.   So we have little incentive to be 
"stingy" with listings; for the same reason, I wouldn't suggest "expiring" 
companies unless they go out of business.

The reason for the last "no" is that vendors of commercial software, no matter 
how closely tied to PostgreSQL, are not "contributing"; they are at best 
complimenting Postgres for mutual benefit.  It also removes some "incentive" 
for companies in the "PostgreSQL space" to OSS their software, which of 
course we want them to do.

However, before you give an opinion, you should be aware that under that set 
of rules, Elein's company Varlena LLC would not be listed with "corporate 
sponsors", despite providing the quite valuable "General Bits".  While very 
useful,  100% PG-oriented, and free, GB is "all rights reserved" and hosted 
entirely at Varlena.com.

I'm bringing this up not to pick on Elein -- especially as GB could change its 
status at any time per Elein's post: http://www.varlena.com/GeneralBits/ -- 
but because this "borderline" situation is liable to arise again.   We 
already had something exactly analogous with CommandPrompt's online 
publishing of Practical PostgreSQL; again, useful to the community and free, 
but externally hosted and not OSS.   This issue would apply equally if, for 
example, EMS HiTech offered pgExporter under a free shareware license.  It 
would be nice, useful, popular, but still not a "contribution".

So, opinions?

-- 
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

Responses

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2004-12-03 18:57:38
Subject: Re: Who's a "Corporate Sponsor"?
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2004-12-03 18:29:09
Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Corporate Contributors WAS: merging advocacy and

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group