Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 July 2009 21:38:06 Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>> We should either
>> i) remove it
>> ii) auction/openly charge for the advertising space
>> iii) have a credits or sponsors list
>>
>
> While I have occasionally spoken up about this, I'm not sure how to formulate
> a fair set of rules that can apply to everyone.
>
> The page in question is this: <http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux>. We
> do promote an Ubuntu package there, for example. And even though Ubuntu
> installers are not typically graphical, I don't think anyone would really
> notice or complain if these packages printed out a notice, "Ubuntu packages
> made by Canonical".
>
> And then how is this different from "One-Click Installer made by
> EnterpriseDB"?
>
It's certainly a question how dominantly "Installer provided by XXX" is
placed. I'd be perfectly ok with it if the lettering was a lot more
discreet, and not combined with the official PostgreSQL logo in a
misleading way. Methinks the installer should be used as advertising
space for PostgreSQL purposes only and not be sold, to avoid any such
issues.
But there's also the aspect that the postgres download page for Windows,
Linux and MacOSX will redirect to an EDB page, which really was the
first thing that irritated me (forgot to mention). Why is that so, why
not a postgres page? Do we want/need EDB to officially host postgres
stuff, esp with PostgreSQL listed as one of EDB's featured products?
Regards,
Andreas
