| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Lance Obermeyer <LObermey(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Bernier <robert(dot)bernier5(at)sympatico(dot)ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Linux trademark and PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2005-08-19 20:03:08 |
| Message-ID: | 43063AFC.5060609@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
> Whether the licensor (e.g. the owner of the mark) is a private individual or the "PostgreSQL Foundation" is not relevant from the perspective of the licensee. That is a separate question.
>
> Pervasive is interested in becoming a formal licensee of the mark. Just to be clear, we have no desire to be the exclusive licensee.
> We believe that the bar to becoming a licensee of the mark should be low, just as the bar to using the software is. We would
>contribute to the creation of a licensing contract, up to assisting in the creation of a PostgreSQL Mark Institute as the licensing vehicle if that is what makes the most sense.
I believe using the PostgreSQL Foundation for this is the most appropriate.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Travers | 2005-08-19 20:13:53 | Re: Linux trademark and PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Lance Obermeyer | 2005-08-19 19:19:45 | Re: Linux trademark and PostgreSQL |