On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 15:44, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Peter,
>
> > There is no conflict. If a company calls itself PostgreSQL, Inc., then
> > it will logically use the PostgreSQL elephant as its logo. If you feel
> > there is a conflict then the conflict is really a company calling
> > itself PostgreSQL, Inc. That was not particularly wise, but I don't
> > really consider it a problem. But the logo is really a much smaller
> > subset problem.
>
> You missed part of Lamar's commentary: apparently the BEH logo belonged to
> PostgreSQL Inc. and we started using it, not the other way around. So the
> logo is theirs and we copied it.
>
> Which *definitely* wasn't smart.
>
Maybe I missed this part, but what is the origin of the logo we
currently use? Ie. who wrote/drew it? where did they first submit it and
for what purpose? Lamar stated pgsql.inc started using it first, but
that doesn't mean it was designed for them. I see on the pgsql
propoganda page a button from Jeff MacDonald with the logo with the note
that he "Used Daniel's Elephant", which I believe refers to Daniel
Lundin, though I don't recognize that name. Note also that that page
indicates that those logo's are for the community, not the corporation,
which in essence would mean that the company has posted that the logo is
for the community.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
