Thread: Pervasive PostgreSQL Announcement
Folks, By now, you may have seen the news announcement around Pervasive starting a supported version of PostgreSQL. http://www.pervasivepostgres.com/ For those that don't know, Pervasive is an "old" database company, originally known as Btrieve. Their main product, btrieve, is one of the most widely distributed embedded databases in the world. They *are* serious about contributing to the project. If anyone has any questions, you should refer them to me; I'm in contact with the Pervasive people. -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh wrote: > By now, you may have seen the news announcement around Pervasive starting > a > supported version of PostgreSQL. > http://www.pervasivepostgres.com/ > > For those that don't know, Pervasive is an "old" database company, > originally > known as Btrieve. Their main product, btrieve, is one of the most > widely > distributed embedded databases in the world. > > They *are* serious about contributing to the project. If anyone has any > questions, you should refer them to me; I'm in contact with the Pervasive > people. That's really interesting. At our company, we just finished developing an ISAM adapter for postgresql that does roughly the same thing. It's really good to see the Pervasive people embracing pg because that justifies our decision to undertake the effort (which was an outstanding success, btw). Had I known a year ago that they were going to do it, I might have advised waiting to see what they came up with :)...overall, though, this just proves that pg is simply the best database for this type of thing, it has programmability features that make it great for this type of application. Many people may not appreciate what a big deal it is to a vote of confidence from a (looking at their press page) company like Pervasive...it's huge. There is simply a ton of ISAM stuff sitting out there growing older, and this is an important step in pg garnering a strong presence there. Hats off to the individual(s) who engineered this (I'm assuming Josh had a hand it it). Merlin
Merlin, > Many people may not appreciate what a big deal it is to a vote of > confidence from a (looking at their press page) company like > Pervasive...it's huge. There is simply a ton of ISAM stuff sitting out > there growing older, and this is an important step in pg garnering a > strong presence there. Hats off to the individual(s) who engineered > this (I'm assuming Josh had a hand it it). Only encouraging them, and letting them know that the community does welcome new companies. -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
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. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
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? -- 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
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? > > Yes it is probably Pervasiv Postgres that is the trademark. Which is fine, the other trademark would be PostgreSQL. J -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
Lance Obermeyer wrote: > This is a very black and white issue. "PostgreSQL" is a registered > trademark that I do not have a license to use. And you believe the "Postgres" is sufficiently dissimilar that it cannot be confused? That's like calling a product "Microso". -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
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"... -- Best Regards, Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 12:24 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > They *are* serious about contributing to the project. If anyone has any > questions, you should refer them to me; I'm in contact with the Pervasive > people. It's good to see other companies join in. Is that will contribute, or have contributed?... I hadn't noticed... -- Best Regards, Simon Riggs
On January 10, 2005 11:32 pm, you wrote: > >I assume "Pervasive Postgres" is their trademark, not just "Postgres". > >That seems OK to me, no? > > Yes it is probably Pervasiv Postgres that is the trademark. > Which is fine, the other trademark would be PostgreSQL. > I remember stories back in the 70's of Greek restaurants in Toronto being ordered to remove all mention of the word "Olympic"in their name when the summer games came to Montreal. Pervasive technically requires permission to use the word PostgreSQL in their title. That is the law folks but whether ornot you want to follow the letter of the law is another matter. robert b
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
On January 11, 2005 07:42 am, Robert Treat wrote: > 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. You're right of course, why be critical of Pervasive when so many others already do it? Except for the small matter that I'm right too. Somebody in the community currently controls the PostgreSQL trademark name and should get off his duff and make out the correct paper work by explicitly assigning permission. Does anybody remember that goof in california that sued Linus of using 'his' trademark'? robert b
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 07:42 -0500, Robert Treat wrote: > On Tuesday 11 January 2005 06:56, Simon Riggs wrote: > > 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. Well spoken. I withdraw my criticisms and will act as you say. -- Best Regards, Simon Riggs
Am Dienstag, 11. Januar 2005 13:42 schrieb Robert Treat: > Whose trademark would it infringe upon? The point is, they are claiming trademark on a name that was hitherto free for everyone to use. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Hi Everybody, here Simone from distant Italy! My company is studying some sort of Linux certification, focused on debian. I was curious to know your point of view about pgsql certifications, both "alone" or inserted inside a wider certification (for example, sysadmin certification, that includes apache, postfix, postgresql). Thanks for any suggestion and/or comment! -- Ing. iunior Simone Brunozzi WEDOIT s.a.s. - Soluzioni informatiche Via protomartiri Francescani, 26 06088 Assisi (PG) - ITALY www.wedoit.us Tel. +39 075-8041195 Cell. +39 340-5768488 ---------------------------------------
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Am Dienstag, 11. Januar 2005 13:42 schrieb Robert Treat: >> Whose trademark would it infringe upon? > > The point is, they are claiming trademark on a name that was hitherto free > for > everyone to use. I have to agree with Peter. They could use "postgres" like everyone else does, but claiming a trademark even on "Pervasive Postgres" seems bad. Josh, you said you are in contact with them. Could you find out what they think about this issue? Best Regards, Michael Paesold
Am Dienstag, 11. Januar 2005 16:18 schrieb Simone Brunozzi: > I was curious to know your point of view about pgsql certifications, > both "alone" or inserted inside a wider certification (for example, > sysadmin certification, that includes apache, postfix, postgresql). This subject has already been discussed extensively. Searching the net should give you an impression. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 11. Januar 2005 13:42 schrieb Robert Treat:
>> Whose trademark would it infringe upon?
>
> The point is, they are claiming trademark on a name that was hitherto free for
> everyone to use.
>
I agree with Peter, but I don't see what we could do besides
public blame.
>
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
>>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. > > Except that we don't have a trademark on postgres as far as I know. We (the community) have a trademark on PostgreSQL, so there is no infringement. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >That looks like clear infringement to me to claim that they ever could >have a trademark on the phrase "pervasive postgres"... > > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
>>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. >> >> > >You're right of course, why be critical of Pervasive when so many others > already do it? Except for the small matter that I'm right too. Somebody in > the community currently controls the PostgreSQL trademark name and should > get off his duff and make out the correct paper work by explicitly assigning > permission. Does anybody remember that goof in california that sued Linus of > using 'his' trademark'? > > Well one major problem with the PostgreSQL trademark is that it isn't enforced, and thus unenforceable. There is also no indication that the trademark would ever be enforced. Trademarks must be enforced vigorously in order to protect them. As there have been several large corporations (and small ones) who have used the PostgreSQL trademark without permission, and without enforcement... We can probably forget enforcing in general. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >robert b > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
Peter Eisentraut wrote: >Am Dienstag, 11. Januar 2005 13:42 schrieb Robert Treat: > > >>Whose trademark would it infringe upon? >> >> > >The point is, they are claiming trademark on a name that was hitherto free for >everyone to use. > > Oh good point. Maybe a simple note from Josh Berkus letting them know about that would be a good idea. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
On January 11, 2005 11:11 am, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >Am Dienstag, 11. Januar 2005 13:42 schrieb Robert Treat: > >>Whose trademark would it infringe upon? > > > >The point is, they are claiming trademark on a name that was hitherto free > > for everyone to use. > > Oh good point. Maybe a simple note from Josh Berkus letting them > know about that would be a good idea. This kind of thing is going to bite us someday. All it takes is one bastard. robert b
Peter, Robert, Simon, etc: > > >The point is, they are claiming trademark on a name that was hitherto > > > free for everyone to use. > > > > Oh good point. Maybe a simple note from Josh Berkus letting them > > know about that would be a good idea. > > This kind of thing is going to bite us someday. All it takes is one > bastard. Lance (of Pervasive) actually has been replying to this thread, but there's something wrong with his subscribtion and the stuff is held up for moderation. You'll see it soon. To sum up: Their trademark is "Pervasive Postgres", not "Postgres" and not "PostgreSQL". This makes sense, and I'd trust their lawyers investigated its enforcability/legality. None of us, last I checked, are attorneys. For that matter, Josh Drake has a trademark on "Mammoth" in the context of "PostgreSQL", and has had for a year. SRA has a trademark on "PowerGres". Last year, the ill-fated Lon James briefly incorporated as "Postgres Inc." None of this has interfered in any way with the community's ability to distribute stuff and use the words we want to. FWIW, the various companies using the name "PostgreSQL" for products have,as a rule, contacted the Core Team to discuss it first, and received "permission" from at least one Core member. While this is hardly legally formal, we do have some kind of process for the trademark. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Am Dienstag, 11. Januar 2005 16:31 schrieb Lance Obermeyer: > Also, nobody > else could ever have used the term "Pervasive Postgres" since "Pervasive" > is a registered trademark. A random person is still free to use the term > "MyCompany Postgres", since "Postgres" is a generic term, not registered as > anybody's trademark. I'm not even so much worried about Pervasive claiming a trademark on a name that is generally considered some kind of "community property", whatever that means. What I'm puzzled about is that you are clearly aware that "PostgreSQL" is a registered trademark, and that you try to sidestep that problem by calling your product "Postgres". Everyone who is even slightly familiar with trademark regulations knows that that doesn't work. At the same time you are undermining our eternal effort to teach people the correct name of our product. So that leaves me to believe either (a) the legal department of Pervasive is incompetent, or (b) the marketing department of Pervasive is incompetent, or (c) you are trying to get away with something, or (d) you are trying to lay claim on the name "PostgreSQL" through the backdoor. Please educate us. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Since this seems to have stuck a nerve, let me try and explain a bit more behind the naming decision. Many posters seem to prefer if I would have named my product "Pervasive PostgreSQL." To be honest, I agree. That was preferable. However, the inescapable fact is that "PostgreSQL" is a registered trademark owned by somebody else. UnlessI hold a signed license from the trademark holder, I would be knowingly infringing upon somebody else's property right. That opens me to legal liability of unknowable scale. There are public posts in the advocacy group essentially pledgingto not try and enforce the trademark against groups like Pervasive. Those posts are legally unpersuasive. Thereare others using the trademark presumably without license. That does not preclude the trademark holder sending me (orthem) a cease and desist letter, it only makes it easier for me to defend myself. The bottom line is that there is a risk, albeit small, that my company, as well as other companies using the word, couldget dragged into court to explain why it knowingly infringed on a registered trademark. That risk is significantlyless with the word "Postgres" since it is not a registered trademark. Contrary to popular opinion, companiesdesperately want to avoid going to court, and we always take the less risky path. So, had there been a mechanismin place to solve this above similar to what Linus has done with the Linux Mark Institute, we wouldn't be here. While I sense there is a desire to paint my intentions as "evil", I can only ask you to believe that it isn't the case. My decisions have been an honest response to navigating waters where opinion (the name "PostgreSQL" is community property)is distinctly different from fact (the word "PostgreSQL" is a registered trademark). My suggestion, whether youaccept it or not, is to formally resolve this before the next guy that is trying to be on the right side of the communityand the law shows up. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
I totally understand your position and you have clearly thought out the implications. I do think it is a shame you didn't use PostgreSQL if that is what you preferred. In fact we registered PostgreSQL only to prevent someone else from registering it and blocking the community from using it. We want others to use it for their products so if our registering it prevented you from using it, that is a shame and is not what we intended, in fact the opposite. We registered it so you would be safe to use it. Can someone explain how this is to be handled? I don't think the trademark laws really encourage someone to trademark something so others can use it and we should figure out a plan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lance Obermeyer wrote: > Since this seems to have stuck a nerve, let me try and explain a bit > more behind the naming decision. > > Many posters seem to prefer if I would have named my product "Pervasive > PostgreSQL." To be honest, I agree. That was preferable. However, > the inescapable fact is that "PostgreSQL" is a registered trademark > owned by somebody else. Unless I hold a signed license from the > trademark holder, I would be knowingly infringing upon somebody else's > property right. That opens me to legal liability of unknowable scale. > There are public posts in the advocacy group essentially pledging to > not try and enforce the trademark against groups like Pervasive. Those > posts are legally unpersuasive. There are others using the trademark > presumably without license. That does not preclude the trademark holder > sending me (or them) a cease and desist letter, it only makes it easier > for me to defend myself. > > The bottom line is that there is a risk, albeit small, that my company, > as well as other companies using the word, could get dragged into court > to explain why it knowingly infringed on a registered trademark. That > risk is significantly less with the word "Postgres" since it is not a > registered trademark. Contrary to popular opinion, companies > desperately want to avoid going to court, and we always take the less > risky path. So, had there been a mechanism in place to solve this > above similar to what Linus has done with the Linux Mark Institute, we > wouldn't be here. > > While I sense there is a desire to paint my intentions as "evil", I > can only ask you to believe that it isn't the case. My decisions have > been an honest response to navigating waters where opinion (the name > "PostgreSQL" is community property) is distinctly different from fact > (the word "PostgreSQL" is a registered trademark). My suggestion, > whether you accept it or not, is to formally resolve this before the > next guy that is trying to be on the right side of the community and > the law shows up. > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > -- 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
I totally agree: everybody should have the ability of using the trademark "PostgreSQL". However the person who controls the trademark must make a formal annoucement i.e the rules of usage that is air tight in a court of law. This act demonstrates due diligence on the part of the trademark holder and will prepare us for WHEN the day comes that we go to court (mark my words, it will come). If this policy has already been said/posted in the past then it must be said again with the proper references to said declaration. Again, due diligence is very important. On January 11, 2005 01:03 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I totally understand your position and you have clearly thought out the > implications. I do think it is a shame you didn't use PostgreSQL if > that is what you preferred. > > In fact we registered PostgreSQL only to prevent someone else from > registering it and blocking the community from using it. We want others > to use it for their products so if our registering it prevented you from > using it, that is a shame and is not what we intended, in fact the > opposite. We registered it so you would be safe to use it. > > Can someone explain how this is to be handled? I don't think the > trademark laws really encourage someone to trademark something so others > can use it and we should figure out a plan. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lance Obermeyer wrote: > > Since this seems to have stuck a nerve, let me try and explain a bit > > more behind the naming decision. > > > > Many posters seem to prefer if I would have named my product "Pervasive > > PostgreSQL." To be honest, I agree. That was preferable. However, > > the inescapable fact is that "PostgreSQL" is a registered trademark > > owned by somebody else. Unless I hold a signed license from the > > trademark holder, I would be knowingly infringing upon somebody else's > > property right. That opens me to legal liability of unknowable scale. > > There are public posts in the advocacy group essentially pledging to > > not try and enforce the trademark against groups like Pervasive. Those > > posts are legally unpersuasive. There are others using the trademark > > presumably without license. That does not preclude the trademark holder > > sending me (or them) a cease and desist letter, it only makes it easier > > for me to defend myself. > > > > The bottom line is that there is a risk, albeit small, that my company, > > as well as other companies using the word, could get dragged into court > > to explain why it knowingly infringed on a registered trademark. That > > risk is significantly less with the word "Postgres" since it is not a > > registered trademark. Contrary to popular opinion, companies > > desperately want to avoid going to court, and we always take the less > > risky path. So, had there been a mechanism in place to solve this > > above similar to what Linus has done with the Linux Mark Institute, we > > wouldn't be here. > > > > While I sense there is a desire to paint my intentions as "evil", I > > can only ask you to believe that it isn't the case. My decisions have > > been an honest response to navigating waters where opinion (the name > > "PostgreSQL" is community property) is distinctly different from fact > > (the word "PostgreSQL" is a registered trademark). My suggestion, > > whether you accept it or not, is to formally resolve this before the > > next guy that is trying to be on the right side of the community and > > the law shows up. > robert b
> I'm not even so much worried about Pervasive claiming a trademark on a name > that is generally considered some kind of "community property", whatever that > means. What I'm puzzled about is that you are clearly aware that > "PostgreSQL" is a registered trademark, and that you try to sidestep that > problem by calling your product "Postgres". Everyone who is even slightly > familiar with trademark regulations knows that that doesn't work. At the > same time you are undermining our eternal effort to teach people the correct > name of our product. So that leaves me to believe either (a) the legal > department of Pervasive is incompetent, or (b) the marketing department of > Pervasive is incompetent, or (c) you are trying to get away with something, > or (d) you are trying to lay claim on the name "PostgreSQL" through the > backdoor. Please educate us. Or perhaps, they are just protecting their collective business interests. I seriously doubt that Pervasive has any level of ulterior motive here. They are a business, they want to make money. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > -- Command Prompt, Inc., your source for PostgreSQL replication, professional support, programming, managed services, shared and dedicated hosting. Home of the Open Source Projects plPHP, plPerlNG, pgManage, and pgPHPtoolkit. Contact us now at: +1-503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com
Attachment
Bruce, > In fact we registered PostgreSQL only to prevent someone else from > registering it and blocking the community from using it. We want others > to use it for their products so if our registering it prevented you from > using it, that is a shame and is not what we intended, in fact the > opposite. We registered it so you would be safe to use it. > > Can someone explain how this is to be handled? I don't think the > trademark laws really encourage someone to trademark something so others > can use it and we should figure out a plan. Well, one obvious possibility is, once we get the Foundation approved by the IRS, to transfer ownership of the trademark to the Foundation. Then the Foundation can offer the trademark under a public license that explicitly gives permission to anyone to use it who is "using it properly", that is for a distribution of the PostgreSQL code. -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:39:49AM -0600, Lance Obermeyer wrote:
> legal liability of unknowable scale. There are public posts in the
> advocacy group essentially pledging to not try and enforce the
> trademark against groups like Pervasive. Those posts are legally
> unpersuasive. There are others using the trademark presumably
Not to mention legally dangerous -- just aske the makers of Aspirin.
I mean "Bayer Aspirin"; they lost their trademark because of
non-enforcement.
> trademark). My suggestion, whether you accept it or not, is to
> formally resolve this before the next guy that is trying to be on
> the right side of the community and the law shows up.
I think this is an excellent suggestion. (And by the way, your
public interest in PostgreSQL is welcomed, at least by me.)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what
you told them to. That actually seems sort of quaint now.
--J.D. Baldwin
>>trademark). My suggestion, whether you accept it or not, is to >>formally resolve this before the next guy that is trying to be on >>the right side of the community and the law shows up. > > > I think this is an excellent suggestion. (And by the way, your > public interest in PostgreSQL is welcomed, at least by me.) Just FYI, I would be surprised if at this point the trademark was enforceable on any level. IANAL but the trademark hasn't been enforced once as far as I know since it was created... But I would agree that there definately needs to be some level of statement for the use of the trademark. SIncerely, Joshua D. Drake > > A > -- Command Prompt, Inc., your source for PostgreSQL replication, professional support, programming, managed services, shared and dedicated hosting. Home of the Open Source Projects plPHP, plPerlNG, pgManage, and pgPHPtoolkit. Contact us now at: +1-503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com
Attachment
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>> trademark). My suggestion, whether you accept it or not, is to >>> formally resolve this before the next guy that is trying to be on >>> the right side of the community and the law shows up. >> >> >> >> I think this is an excellent suggestion. (And by the way, your >> public interest in PostgreSQL is welcomed, at least by me.) > > > Just FYI, I would be surprised if at this point the trademark was > enforceable on any level. IANAL but the trademark hasn't been enforced > once as far as I know since it was created... I'm assuming the TM is only in the USA anyway. Registering an EU-wide/international trademark seems quite involved. http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/ http://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/index.html > But I would agree that there definately needs to be some level of > statement for the use of the trademark. Having an "official" statement or body to approach would at least let those who want to play reasonably know that they're doing the right thing. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
simone.brunozzi@wedoit.us (Simone Brunozzi) writes: > Hi Everybody, > here Simone from distant Italy! > > My company is studying some sort of Linux certification, focused on debian. > > I was curious to know your point of view about pgsql certifications, > both "alone" or inserted inside a wider certification (for example, > sysadmin certification, that includes apache, postfix, postgresql). This has been discussed in the past. It's a "neat idea," but it takes a great deal of effort to assemble and administer certification programs, and nobody has emerged that has been willing to invest that effort. -- "cbbrowne","@","ca.afilias.info" <http://dev6.int.libertyrms.com/> Christopher Browne (416) 673-4124 (land)
On January 11, 2005 04:39 pm, Christopher Browne wrote:
> simone.brunozzi@wedoit.us (Simone Brunozzi) writes:
> >
> > My company is studying some sort of Linux certification, focused on
> > debian.
>
> This has been discussed in the past.
>
> It's a "neat idea," but it takes a great deal of effort to assemble
> and administer certification programs, and nobody has emerged that has
> been willing to invest that effort.
Acutally, there are number of companies doing something but none of it hasn't
gotten any large scale recognition.
--
Robert Bernier
PostgreSQL Business Intelligence Analyst,
SRA AMERICA (Formerly of One WTC)
Consulting, PostgreSQL Services & PowerGres on Windows
One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910
New York, NY 10119
Tel: 212.244.8833
> Hi Everybody, > here Simone from distant Italy! > > My company is studying some sort of Linux certification, focused on debian. > > I was curious to know your point of view about pgsql certifications, > both "alone" or inserted inside a wider certification (for example, > sysadmin certification, that includes apache, postfix, postgresql). We (Software Research Associates, Inc.: HQ in Tokyo, Japan) will launch a world wide PostgreSQL certification program in the near future. As someone has already pointed out, it needs great effort. However we believe it would help to make PostgreSQL more popular. -- Tatsuo Ishii
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 10:14 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> > In fact we registered PostgreSQL only to prevent someone else from
> > registering it and blocking the community from using it. We want others
> > to use it for their products so if our registering it prevented you from
> > using it, that is a shame and is not what we intended, in fact the
> > opposite. We registered it so you would be safe to use it.
> >
> > Can someone explain how this is to be handled? I don't think the
> > trademark laws really encourage someone to trademark something so others
> > can use it and we should figure out a plan.
>
> Well, one obvious possibility is, once we get the Foundation approved by the
> IRS, to transfer ownership of the trademark to the Foundation. Then the
> Foundation can offer the trademark under a public license that explicitly
> gives permission to anyone to use it who is "using it properly", that is for
> a distribution of the PostgreSQL code.
Well you need to talk to a lawyer but Linux handles it this way.
Now saying that it has been a little lax in the last few years but
it is getting tighter.
http://www.linuxmark.org/
There is a legal expense in maintaining the trademark and there
is value in the trademark to people who want to associate with
the group. (Like Pervasive) So a small fee for using the
trademark usually isn't an issue as it is the normal quid pro
quo method of business and the lawyers feel better about
it. :-)
Tim
>
--
Timothy D. Witham - Chief Technology Officer - wookie@osdl.org
Open Source Development Lab Inc - A non-profit corporation
12725 SW Millikan Way - Suite 400 - Beaverton OR, 97005
(503)-906-1911 (office) (503)-702-2871 (cell)
(503)-626-2436 (fax)
I hesitate to post this, since it is well travel ground, but...
This is a very black and white issue. "PostgreSQL" is a registered trademark that I do not have a license to use.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:peter_e@gmx.net]
Sent: Mon 1/10/2005 5:33 PM
To: josh@agliodbs.com
Cc: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Pervasive PostgreSQL Announcement
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.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Just to clarify, our product name is "Pervasive Postgres" I've tried to be consistent in referring to my version as "PervasivePostgres" and the community version as "PostgreSQL". I've instructed others in my company to try and be precisein their use of the two terms as well. Also, nobody else could ever have used the term "Pervasive Postgres" since"Pervasive" is a registered trademark. A random person is still free to use the term "MyCompany Postgres", since "Postgres"is a generic term, not registered as anybody's trademark. -----Original Message----- From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:peter_e@gmx.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:01 AM To: Robert Treat Cc: Simon Riggs; Bruce Momjian; josh@agliodbs.com; pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Pervasive PostgreSQL Announcement Am Dienstag, 11. Januar 2005 13:42 schrieb Robert Treat: > Whose trademark would it infringe upon? The point is, they are claiming trademark on a name that was hitherto free for everyone to use. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
One more significant point is that Pervasive is trying to "say out loud" that with this product they are or trying to be part of the postgres community. They are not trying to usurp the word but rather join in the frey. --elein PS: Please, please approve my posts...my smtp is broken from my usual address :-( On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 06:22:57PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Am Dienstag, 11. Januar 2005 16:31 schrieb Lance Obermeyer: > > Also, nobody > > else could ever have used the term "Pervasive Postgres" since "Pervasive" > > is a registered trademark. A random person is still free to use the term > > "MyCompany Postgres", since "Postgres" is a generic term, not registered as > > anybody's trademark. > > I'm not even so much worried about Pervasive claiming a trademark on a name > that is generally considered some kind of "community property", whatever that > means. What I'm puzzled about is that you are clearly aware that > "PostgreSQL" is a registered trademark, and that you try to sidestep that > problem by calling your product "Postgres". Everyone who is even slightly > familiar with trademark regulations knows that that doesn't work. At the > same time you are undermining our eternal effort to teach people the correct > name of our product. So that leaves me to believe either (a) the legal > department of Pervasive is incompetent, or (b) the marketing department of > Pervasive is incompetent, or (c) you are trying to get away with something, > or (d) you are trying to lay claim on the name "PostgreSQL" through the > backdoor. Please educate us. > > -- > Peter Eisentraut > http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>> I was curious to know your point of view about pgsql certifications, >> both "alone" or inserted inside a wider certification (for example, >> sysadmin certification, that includes apache, postfix, postgresql). > > We (Software Research Associates, Inc.: HQ in Tokyo, Japan) will > launch a world wide PostgreSQL certification program in the near > future. As someone has already pointed out, it needs great > effort. However we believe it would help to make PostgreSQL more > popular. I went to the Big Nerd Ranch (http://bignerdranch.com) about a year ago for their PostgreSQL Bootcamp. I had been using PostgreSQL at the time for four years, and I came away with a more complete knowledgebase that I had going in. The workload is intense, and the curriculum is mature. I'd recommend it to any company out there looking to get their dba's certified on PostgreSQL.
josh@agliodbs.com (Josh Berkus) wrote in news:200501101224.09422.josh@agliodbs.com: > http://www.pervasivepostgres.com/ I can't open their website. In internet explorer i can see their website behind the window which ask me if i want to install Micromedia Flash Player. In Opera it just flashes by (when i have disabled use of plugins). Haven't tried Firefox. If i bother i will try to e-mail their webmaster. -- Rolf
Its the one thing too typical of 'modern companies', the use of flash on their sites ... but, it attracts the Windows users, I guess :) On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Rolf Xstvik wrote: > josh@agliodbs.com (Josh Berkus) wrote in > news:200501101224.09422.josh@agliodbs.com: > >> http://www.pervasivepostgres.com/ > > I can't open their website. > > In internet explorer i can see their website behind the window which ask me > if i want to install Micromedia Flash Player. > In Opera it just flashes by (when i have disabled use of plugins). > Haven't tried Firefox. > > If i bother i will try to e-mail their webmaster. > > -- > Rolf > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html > ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:49:22 -0400 (AST), Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@postgresql.org> wrote: > > Its the one thing too typical of 'modern companies', the use of flash on > their sites ... but, it attracts the Windows users, I guess :) Aw c'mon, it's not so bad. Actually it made me smile - I thought it was cool, and it certainly doesn't keep me from browsing their website. Besides, that's the fastest I have seen my cats move in several years. -- Mitch, loving the subwoofer in his laptop right now
On Jan 14, 2005, at 4:23 AM, Rolf Østvik wrote: > I can't open their website. > > In internet explorer i can see their website behind the window which > ask me > if i want to install Micromedia Flash Player. > In Opera it just flashes by (when i have disabled use of plugins). > Haven't tried Firefox. > > If i bother i will try to e-mail their webmaster. I emailed the webmaster that it was not working with Safari or Firefox on OS X. I received a prompt reply that it has been fixed (it has). There is no information content in the flash stuff -- you just want to click on the "Skip Intro" link anyway. The the use of Flash on web sites really puzzles me, especially for technical products. John DeSoi, Ph.D. http://pgedit.com/ Power Tools for PostgreSQL
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Mitch Pirtle wrote: > On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:49:22 -0400 (AST), Marc G. Fournier > <scrappy@postgresql.org> wrote: >> >> Its the one thing too typical of 'modern companies', the use of flash on >> their sites ... but, it attracts the Windows users, I guess :) > > Aw c'mon, it's not so bad. Actually it made me smile - I thought it > was cool, and it certainly doesn't keep me from browsing their > website. Besides, that's the fastest I have seen my cats move in > several years. Since I run a non-flash browsr, can you desscribe it to me? :) ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 01:32:09 -0400 (AST), Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@postgresql.org> wrote: > > Since I run a non-flash browsr, can you desscribe it to me? :) Nah, you're too busy hitting stones together to start a fire :^P -- Mitch
People: > <scrappy@postgresql.org> wrote: > > Since I run a non-flash browsr, can you desscribe it to me? :) > > Nah, you're too busy hitting stones together to start a fire :^P Actually, I haven't been able to see the video intro on either Konqueror or Firefox on Linux. Which is odd, because I can usually access flash just fine. Lance, if you're reading this, maybe you could talk the web team into dropping the flash intro? Flash intros are a bit, well, 90's. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Josh Berkus wrote: > Lance, if you're reading this, maybe you could talk the web team into > dropping the flash intro? Flash intros are a bit, well, 90's. Right... http://www.agliodbs.com/index.html Kris Jurka
Kris, > Right... > > http://www.agliodbs.com/index.html Yep. Case in point ... that site hasn't been updated since 1999. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Man, y'all are a tough crowd. I'll bring it up, but no promises...
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Berkus [mailto:josh@agliodbs.com]
Sent: Sun 1/16/2005 11:42 AM
To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org; Mitch Pirtle
Cc:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Pervasive PostgreSQL Announcement
People:
> <scrappy@postgresql.org> wrote:
> > Since I run a non-flash browsr, can you desscribe it to me? :)
>
> Nah, you're too busy hitting stones together to start a fire :^P
Actually, I haven't been able to see the video intro on either Konqueror or
Firefox on Linux. Which is odd, because I can usually access flash just
fine. Lance, if you're reading this, maybe you could talk the web team into
dropping the flash intro? Flash intros are a bit, well, 90's.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
> Man, y'all are a tough crowd. I'll bring it up, but no promises... > Indeed. I'm a little bit dismayed by the general response from this list to the announcement by your company. First of all, the trademark debate is a good discussion, but please don't let it overshadow some of the bigger issues. I'd like to say thanks to Pervasive for such a big vote of support for PostgreSQL which historically has struggled with recognition and credibility. The information on Pervasive's site could have been lifted right off of our own advocacy materials, including a very nicely written open letter to the community which gives due credit to the project and open source development in general. I've said it before, but it bears repeating; getting a vote of confidence from Pervasive is a big deal...maybe the best press I've ever seen since I've followed the project. It's already started to spin off into other positive articles in the IT press (many of them with quotes by Josh). This was perfectly timed with the 8.0 release of Postgres, which in turn may be one the biggest technical releases of the database in its history. Merlin
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 10:08:42AM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Indeed. I'm a little bit dismayed by the general response from this
> list to the announcement by your company.
I'll second that.
> I'd like to say thanks to Pervasive for such a big vote of support for
> PostgreSQL which historically has struggled with recognition and
> credibility. The information on Pervasive's site could have been lifted
And second this, too. In my not terribly humble opinion, the
announcement is both extremely good news, and a clear case where the
BSD license helps everyone. Expanding the kinds of offerings there
are, including to commercial, enterprise-focussed stuff like
Pervasive is offering, is just the best news I've heard in some time;
and it can be done without the dancing through hoops of having two
licenses.
I may not take seriously the kinds of recommendations that come from
eweek, Gartner, Network World, and other such Big Names who Talk With
Plenty o' Authority. But I'm painfully aware that their views are
formed as much by the financial and PR profile behind a piece of
software as they are by the actual features and track record. If
that were the only reason to be happy about Pervasive's announcement,
I would be. But as it is, Pervasive also seems genuinely to want to
contribute. That's even better news. Three cheers, I say.
Oh, and I cracked up at the elephant roar.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The plural of anecdote is not data.
--Roger Brinner
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 01:53:46PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 10:08:42AM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote: > > Indeed. I'm a little bit dismayed by the general response from this > > list to the announcement by your company. > > I'll second that. > > > I'd like to say thanks to Pervasive for such a big vote of support for > > PostgreSQL which historically has struggled with recognition and > > credibility. The information on Pervasive's site could have been lifted > > And second this, too. In my not terribly humble opinion, the > announcement is both extremely good news, and a clear case where the > BSD license helps everyone. Expanding the kinds of offerings there > are, including to commercial, enterprise-focussed stuff like > Pervasive is offering, is just the best news I've heard in some time; > and it can be done without the dancing through hoops of having two > licenses. > > I may not take seriously the kinds of recommendations that come from > eweek, Gartner, Network World, and other such Big Names who Talk With > Plenty o' Authority. But I'm painfully aware that their views are > formed as much by the financial and PR profile behind a piece of > software as they are by the actual features and track record. If > that were the only reason to be happy about Pervasive's announcement, > I would be. But as it is, Pervasive also seems genuinely to want to > contribute. That's even better news. Three cheers, I say. > > Oh, and I cracked up at the elephant roar. > > A > > -- > Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca > The plural of anecdote is not data. > --Roger Brinner > All agreed, except I still think the elephant eye is creepy :-) --elein > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) >