> 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
Aglio Database Solutions
In response to
pgsql-www by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2004-04-29 19:56:22|
|Subject: Re: Promoting PostgreSQL to the world.|
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2004-04-29 19:45:03|
|Subject: Re: First two requests for PUGs|