On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 15:51, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Rod,
>
> > 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.
Yes, your right. CMD has been good for the main group. I simply want to
ensure that there is enough differentiation in naming convention that
the unwashed masses will not confuse the 2.
The FreeBSD group decided long ago that in order for it to hold the
FreeBSD name, it must go through the FreeBSD processes as a part of the
group. In this case, the FreeBSD name demonstrated quality that you
could trust was tested, open, etc.
This is why there is TrustedBSD (prior to re-integration with the
FreeBSD project) and DragonFlyBSD rather than Trusted FreeBSD and
FreeBSD Experimental.
I think that was a wise decision as there is very little confusion as to
what the FreeBSD group has been responsible for or supports.
What does the name "PostgreSQL Replicator" tell someone who finds it in
Googles results?
I'm guilty of doing the same thing with PostgreSQL Autodoc.
