Dave Page wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 08:51:38AM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>>> Josh Berkus wrote:
>>>> Dave, all:
>> 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.
Joshua D. Drake
>> As for events, I'm not sure I agree with the very last point, about
>> "conferences with little pg content". I think that depends a lot - in some
>> areas, having a single postgresql session *is* a major event. It no longer
>> is in the US for example, but in a lot of other places it is.
I think as long as the postgresql content is published as part of their
material then it should be fine.
> It's a bit subjective. I'd be happy with any level of content from a
> single session up, as long as it includes details so people don't spend
> serious money getting somewhere only to find just a single session.
>> Training events - should we require that they include information about the
>> cost to attend?
> Sounds reasonable.
Joshua D. Drake
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
In response to
pgsql-www by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2007-10-15 15:36:15|
|Subject: Re: Surveys|
|Previous:||From: Dave Page||Date: 2007-10-15 08:38:11|
|Subject: Re: Approval process for news/events/training is broken|