Re: Linux trademark and PostgreSQL - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

There are two different things going on here, trademark and cost.

First is the trademark usage question.  While Robert's suggestion is a noble goal, the "major players, i.e. developers"
arenot owners of the trademark and are likely not potential licensees of the trademark.  Their desires are of no
importancefrom the perspective of a court of law.  A "manifesto" may be interesting reading, but it isn't a contract.
Ajudge wouldn't even bother to read it.  It is therefore *not* the ideal answer, since it is no answer at all.   

I've made my opinion on this clear in previous posts.  PostgreSQL is a registered trademark owned by somebody
somewhere. The "PostgreSQL community" can't guarantee anything to anybody, as it isn't a legal entity, and its not the
ownerof the mark.  The *only* party with standing to guarantee something are the owners, and the *only* vehicle to
guaranteesomething is with a legally binding contract. 

Ultimately, way to put this to bed is where the owner of the mark grants a sublicense to use the mark.  The Linux Mark
Instituteis a fine idea that seems well executed.  Linus clearly received high quality legal advice.  The LMI provides
avehicle for the licensor to sublicense use of the mark through a formal a contract.  Simpler schemes are also
possible. Whether the licensor (e.g. the owner of the mark) is a private individual or the "PostgreSQL Foundation" is
notrelevant 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
exclusivelicensee.  We believe that the bar to becoming a licensee of the mark should be low, just as the bar to using
thesoftware is.  We would contribute to the creation of a licensing contract, up to assisting in the creation of a
PostgreSQLMark Institute as the licensing vehicle if that is what makes the most sense.    

I am not a lawyer, but I talk with one quite often.  Please take my word that this is complex stuff. A layperson, even
onethat has studied the matter in reasonable detail, quickly skates onto thin ice.  The only way to resolve this is
withthe assistance of competent legal counsel. 

The second is the $5000 that LMI is asking of the licensees.  There are real costs in a trademark licensing scheme.
Mostare one-time setup costs, but there may be ongoing costs as well.  LMI apparently has chosen a flat $5k as the way
tospread costs across the interested parties.  They aren't going to get rich off of that.  A flat fee isn't the only
wayto go about it.  I imagine most of the initial costs could be either donated from a law firm or shared amongst the
corporatetypes like Pervasive.  After that, the licensor could establish a much lower cost of license, or even waive
thecost for some or all classes of licensee.   


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Bernier [mailto:robert.bernier5@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 1:02 PM
To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Linux trademark and PostgreSQL


On August 19, 2005 01:39 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Many of you might have read this Slashdot item about Linux Mark
> Institute charging for the use of the Linux trademark by companies:
>
>  http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/19/1154231&tid=167&tid=106
>
> How do we guarantee to companies promoting PostgreSQL that this will not
> happen to them?

The ideal answer is the following.

Have all the major players, i.e. developers, declare a manifesto through a non-profit organization including those
peoplewho have patents, trademarks etc pertaining to postgres. They will state the conditions of usage of said
trademarks.They will also the outline the process of how those conditions can be changed. 

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings