Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Robert Bernier wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Lamar Owen wrote:
> >>
> >>> Unfortunately, and while IANAL, I think this is true, neither PgSQL Inc nor
> >>> PostgreSQL the project can now get trademark on the BEH since both have been
> >>> using it for so long. Of course, PostgreSQL the project isn't a legal
> >>> entity, and so it really can't have a 'trademark' per se.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Whomever owns the trademark sets the rules, it's that simple. If you
> >> don't think this is a big deal then think about all those entities who
> >> do think this a big deal,
> >> http://www.google.com/search?q=trademark+disputes+&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
> >
> > So Marc doesn't own it, PostgreSQL Inc does. Marc, if you ever sold the
> > company, what would happen to the PostgreSQL trademark? Marc, you do
> > own the company and not some mixture of people, right?
>
> There are currently 4 primary owners, and about 30 secondary ones, of
> which you are one, I believe?
>
> 3 of the four primary are past/present members of the project, and I
> believe that 28 of the 30 are same ... I don't know *exact* numbers for
> the secondary ...
>
> Also, if the company was sold, the trademark would be transfer'd over to
> me, or another suitable entity ... the trademark isn't listed as an
> 'asset', and that has been made *very* clear several times ...
So the owner is PostgreSQL Inc, but it isn't an asset? Seems a little
strange, but lots of legal issues are strange.
Seems you have already considered these issues.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
