On Tuesday 11 January 2005 06:56, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 23:16 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > > By now, you may have seen the news announcement around Pervasive
> > > > starting a supported version of PostgreSQL.
> > > > http://www.pervasivepostgres.com/
> > >
> > > I think they should start by deciding on a spelling of their (and our)
> > > product.
> > >
> > > And then they should stop marking it as a trademark.
> >
> > I assume "Pervasive Postgres" is their trademark, not just "Postgres".
> > That seems OK to me, no?
>
> I'm not sure...if they called their site Pervasive Red Hat or Pervasive
> Software Research America or Pervasive 2nd Quadrant, we'd all agree that
> it was wrong.
>
> That looks like clear infringement to me to claim that they ever could
> have a trademark on the phrase "pervasive postgres"...
Whose trademark would it infringe upon? Berkely's ? After all this community
has no hold over the name Postgres. I also think that as long as they
continue to use the terms "pervasive postgres" for thier product and
"postgresql" for the community on a consistent basis, there should be much
issue. Certainly no more than companies like postgresql inc and postgresql
international and that company that sells mammoth postgresql and other
examples... we're a mixing pot on that end, and I think pervasive looks like
they are trying to approach things above board, so I think we should give
them as much helpful feedback as we can and be proud that an established
player wants to be a part of this community.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
