Thread: Linux trademark and PostgreSQL
Many of you might have read this Slashdot item about Linux Mark
Institute charging for the use of the Linux trademark by companies:
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/19/1154231&tid=167&tid=106
How do we guarantee to companies promoting PostgreSQL that this will not
happen to them?
--
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
On August 19, 2005 01:39 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Many of you might have read this Slashdot item about Linux Mark > Institute charging for the use of the Linux trademark by companies: > > http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/19/1154231&tid=167&tid=106 > > How do we guarantee to companies promoting PostgreSQL that this will not > happen to them? The ideal answer is the following. Have all the major players, i.e. developers, declare a manifesto through a non-profit organization including those peoplewho have patents, trademarks etc pertaining to postgres. They will state the conditions of usage of said trademarks.They will also the outline the process of how those conditions can be changed.
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Many of you might have read this Slashdot item about Linux Mark > Institute charging for the use of the Linux trademark by companies: > > http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/19/1154231&tid=167&tid=106 > > How do we guarantee to companies promoting PostgreSQL that this will not > happen to them? That is a good question. The short answer is that the PostgreSQL Trademark is pretty unenforceable. The long answer is we transfer it to a non-profit entity that is in charge of that kind of thing for PostgreSQL. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
There are two different things going on here, trademark and cost. First is the trademark usage question. While Robert's suggestion is a noble goal, the "major players, i.e. developers" arenot owners of the trademark and are likely not potential licensees of the trademark. Their desires are of no importancefrom the perspective of a court of law. A "manifesto" may be interesting reading, but it isn't a contract. Ajudge wouldn't even bother to read it. It is therefore *not* the ideal answer, since it is no answer at all. I've made my opinion on this clear in previous posts. PostgreSQL is a registered trademark owned by somebody somewhere. The "PostgreSQL community" can't guarantee anything to anybody, as it isn't a legal entity, and its not the ownerof the mark. The *only* party with standing to guarantee something are the owners, and the *only* vehicle to guaranteesomething is with a legally binding contract. Ultimately, way to put this to bed is where the owner of the mark grants a sublicense to use the mark. The Linux Mark Instituteis a fine idea that seems well executed. Linus clearly received high quality legal advice. The LMI provides avehicle for the licensor to sublicense use of the mark through a formal a contract. Simpler schemes are also possible. Whether the licensor (e.g. the owner of the mark) is a private individual or the "PostgreSQL Foundation" is notrelevant from the perspective of the licensee. That is a separate question. Pervasive is interested in becoming a formal licensee of the mark. Just to be clear, we have no desire to be the exclusivelicensee. We believe that the bar to becoming a licensee of the mark should be low, just as the bar to using thesoftware is. We would contribute to the creation of a licensing contract, up to assisting in the creation of a PostgreSQLMark Institute as the licensing vehicle if that is what makes the most sense. I am not a lawyer, but I talk with one quite often. Please take my word that this is complex stuff. A layperson, even onethat has studied the matter in reasonable detail, quickly skates onto thin ice. The only way to resolve this is withthe assistance of competent legal counsel. The second is the $5000 that LMI is asking of the licensees. There are real costs in a trademark licensing scheme. Mostare one-time setup costs, but there may be ongoing costs as well. LMI apparently has chosen a flat $5k as the way tospread costs across the interested parties. They aren't going to get rich off of that. A flat fee isn't the only wayto go about it. I imagine most of the initial costs could be either donated from a law firm or shared amongst the corporatetypes like Pervasive. After that, the licensor could establish a much lower cost of license, or even waive thecost for some or all classes of licensee. -----Original Message----- From: Robert Bernier [mailto:robert.bernier5@sympatico.ca] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 1:02 PM To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Linux trademark and PostgreSQL On August 19, 2005 01:39 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Many of you might have read this Slashdot item about Linux Mark > Institute charging for the use of the Linux trademark by companies: > > http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/19/1154231&tid=167&tid=106 > > How do we guarantee to companies promoting PostgreSQL that this will not > happen to them? The ideal answer is the following. Have all the major players, i.e. developers, declare a manifesto through a non-profit organization including those peoplewho have patents, trademarks etc pertaining to postgres. They will state the conditions of usage of said trademarks.They will also the outline the process of how those conditions can be changed. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
> Whether the licensor (e.g. the owner of the mark) is a private individual or the "PostgreSQL Foundation" is not relevantfrom the perspective of the licensee. That is a separate question. > > Pervasive is interested in becoming a formal licensee of the mark. Just to be clear, we have no desire to be the exclusivelicensee. > We believe that the bar to becoming a licensee of the mark should be low, just as the bar to using the software is. Wewould >contribute to the creation of a licensing contract, up to assisting in the creation of a PostgreSQL Mark Institute as thelicensing vehicle if that is what makes the most sense. I believe using the PostgreSQL Foundation for this is the most appropriate. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> Many of you might have read this Slashdot item about Linux Mark >> Institute charging for the use of the Linux trademark by companies: >> >> http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/19/1154231&tid=167&tid=106 >> >> >> How do we guarantee to companies promoting PostgreSQL that this will not >> happen to them? > > > That is a good question. The short answer is that the PostgreSQL > Trademark is pretty unenforceable. The long answer is we transfer it to > a non-profit entity that is in charge of that kind of thing for > PostgreSQL. I don't think that this will cut it. The short answer is OK in the sense that an unprotected trademark is pretty weak (IANAL), but how does this prevent something from happening down the road? What if someone attempts to build trademark value at some point (this is really what is happening with Linux, and I have no problem with it). I think that the best answer we can come up with is this: We need to offer a set of clear guidelines for using the trademark. What do you have to do if you want to call your proprietary product PostgreSQL? What if you want to call it "Built on PostgreSQL?" It might be worth hiring a trademark lawyer and see what would be required to put out a license that was free of charge and global. Something along the lines of: Uses of the PostgreSQL Trademark: This license grants you the license to call your product "PostgreSQL" provided that you only use community source code and/or contribute your changes back to the community. If you wish to add proprietary extensions you must at least add adjectives or your company name to the product name. For example "ACME PostgreSQL" or "PostgreSQL by Example Corporation." Any products marketed as "Built On PostgreSQL" must use as their base the community source code and provide compatibility with stock releases. The idea is to provide recourse against someone who might, for example, offer a diluted product, breaking compatibility without letting people know, etc. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting
Agree that having the Foundation be the administrator makes sense. I assume the process would be something like this. 0. Legal counsel is retained. 1. Business terms of licensing the marks is decided. This would cover the approval process, requirements and fees, if any. 2. Contract language for sublicensing the trademark to interested parties is drawn up. Something sort of like http://www.linuxmark.org/linux_license_doc.html 3. Trademarks are transferred to the Foundation, or a contract is executed giving the Foundation the right to grant perpetualsublicenses. This isn't that hard. 4. The program is rolled out. This presumably includes an online form like this http://www.linuxmark.org/license.html. 5. People like Pervasive sign up to be licensed users of the mark. -----Original Message----- From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 3:03 PM To: Lance Obermeyer Cc: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org; Robert Bernier Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Linux trademark and PostgreSQL > Whether the licensor (e.g. the owner of the mark) is a private individual or the "PostgreSQL Foundation" is not relevantfrom the perspective of the licensee. That is a separate question. > > Pervasive is interested in becoming a formal licensee of the mark. Just to be clear, we have no desire to be the exclusivelicensee. > We believe that the bar to becoming a licensee of the mark should be low, just as the bar to using the software is. Wewould >contribute to the creation of a licensing contract, up to assisting in the creation of a PostgreSQL Mark Institute as thelicensing vehicle if that is what makes the most sense. I believe using the PostgreSQL Foundation for this is the most appropriate. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
Why not just put the mark into the public domain? I think it might already be there. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lance Obermeyer wrote: > Agree that having the Foundation be the administrator makes sense. > > I assume the process would be something like this. > 0. Legal counsel is retained. > 1. Business terms of licensing the marks is decided. This would cover the approval process, requirements and fees, ifany. > 2. Contract language for sublicensing the trademark to interested parties is drawn up. Something sort of like http://www.linuxmark.org/linux_license_doc.html > 3. Trademarks are transferred to the Foundation, or a contract is executed giving the Foundation the right to grant perpetualsublicenses. This isn't that hard. > 4. The program is rolled out. This presumably includes an online form like this http://www.linuxmark.org/license.html. > 5. People like Pervasive sign up to be licensed users of the mark. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com] > Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 3:03 PM > To: Lance Obermeyer > Cc: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org; Robert Bernier > Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Linux trademark and PostgreSQL > > > > Whether the licensor (e.g. the owner of the mark) is a private individual or the "PostgreSQL Foundation" is not relevantfrom the perspective of the licensee. That is a separate question. > > > > Pervasive is interested in becoming a formal licensee of the mark. Just to be clear, we have no desire to be the exclusivelicensee. > > > We believe that the bar to becoming a licensee of the mark should be low, just as the bar to using the software is. We would > > >contribute to the creation of a licensing contract, up to assisting in the creation of a PostgreSQL Mark Institute asthe licensing vehicle if that is what makes the most sense. > > I believe using the PostgreSQL Foundation for this is the most appropriate. > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > -- 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: > Why not just put the mark into the public domain? I think it might > already be there. Well that was kind of my point about not being enforceable. The PostgreSQL trademark would be almost impossible to enforce as it never has been encforced. That is the same reason that the Open Source Initiative or whatever they call themselves gave up on the (tm) OpenSource. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lance Obermeyer wrote: > >>Agree that having the Foundation be the administrator makes sense. >> >>I assume the process would be something like this. >>0. Legal counsel is retained. >>1. Business terms of licensing the marks is decided. This would cover the approval process, requirements and fees, ifany. >>2. Contract language for sublicensing the trademark to interested parties is drawn up. Something sort of like http://www.linuxmark.org/linux_license_doc.html >>3. Trademarks are transferred to the Foundation, or a contract is executed giving the Foundation the right to grant perpetualsublicenses. This isn't that hard. >>4. The program is rolled out. This presumably includes an online form like this http://www.linuxmark.org/license.html. >>5. People like Pervasive sign up to be licensed users of the mark. >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com] >>Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 3:03 PM >>To: Lance Obermeyer >>Cc: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org; Robert Bernier >>Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Linux trademark and PostgreSQL >> >> >> >>> Whether the licensor (e.g. the owner of the mark) is a private individual or the "PostgreSQL Foundation" is not relevantfrom the perspective of the licensee. That is a separate question. >>> >>>Pervasive is interested in becoming a formal licensee of the mark. Just to be clear, we have no desire to be the exclusivelicensee. >> >>>We believe that the bar to becoming a licensee of the mark should be low, just as the bar to using the software is. Wewould >> >>>contribute to the creation of a licensing contract, up to assisting in the creation of a PostgreSQL Mark Institute asthe licensing vehicle if that is what makes the most sense. >> >>I believe using the PostgreSQL Foundation for this is the most appropriate. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>Joshua D. Drake >> >>---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >>TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? >> >> http://archives.postgresql.org >> > > -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Bruce, > Why not just put the mark into the public domain? I think it might > already be there. Publicide (as it's referred to in the legal biz) might be the way to go, but only *after* we get legal advice on it. -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> Why not just put the mark into the public domain? I think it might > >> already be there. > > > > Well that was kind of my point about not being enforceable. The PostgreSQL > > trademark would be almost impossible to enforce as it never > > has been enforced. > > Until recently, the Linux trademark wasn't being enforced either, to the > best of my knowledge ... obviously it doesn't take much to change that, if > this initiative that is being discussed is making headway ... Well, the Linux Trademark Institute has been around for a long time, and I have seen places where they state that the Linux trademark is owned by Linus. I think in this case they are doing much more damage to Linux by enforcing the trademark than the possible damage caused by negative use of the trademark. I am worried about companies being scared to promote PostgreSQL because of trademark concerns. -- 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
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: >> Why not just put the mark into the public domain? I think it might >> already be there. > > Well that was kind of my point about not being enforceable. The PostgreSQL > trademark would be almost impossible to enforce as it never > has been encforced. Until recently, the Linux trademark wasn't being enforced either, to the best of my knowledge ... obviously it doesn't take much to change that, if this initiative that is being discussed is making headway ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Well, the Linux Trademark Institute has been around for a long time, and > I have seen places where they state that the Linux trademark is owned by > Linus. > > I think in this case they are doing much more damage to Linux by > enforcing the trademark than the possible damage caused by negative use > of the trademark. > > I am worried about companies being scared to promote PostgreSQL because > of trademark concerns. Which was why, as we discussed on -core, Josh was looking into drafting up a "Public License" for this ... you may have been travelling while this was discussed though? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Lance Obermeyer wrote: > Agree that having the Foundation be the administrator makes sense. At this time, there is no Foundation being formed *other then* the Advcacy Foundation, which, as was agreed to when it was formed, has ownership over neither the code, or the trademark ... If, at some time in the future, we do create such a Foundation though, then we can discuss transferring the trademark over ... As I have discussed with Josh Berkus in the recent past, and we have discussed on -core several times, we have no problems with coming up with a more formal "Grant of Use" then what exists right now (right now, its just always been a "verbal thing") ... but I hadn't heard anything further from Josh about it, so assumed he was working on stuff as concerns that already ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc, > At this time, there is no Foundation being formed *other then* the > Advcacy Foundation, which, as was agreed to when it was formed, has > ownership over neither the code, or the trademark ... > > If, at some time in the future, we do create such a Foundation though, > then we can discuss transferring the trademark over ... Well, that's going to be sooner rather than later. As noted on the foundation list, we're still stalled with the IRS, so it may make sense to re-form the foundation. At that time, it's likely to be a different sort of structure. However, I need to get the political process moving first, as well as better legal counsel. Fortunately, the latter is now just a matter of my meeting with few attorneys and picking one; we have offers. > As I have discussed with Josh Berkus in the recent past, and we have > discussed on -core several times, we have no problems with coming up > with a more formal "Grant of Use" then what exists right now (right now, > its just always been a "verbal thing") ... but I hadn't heard anything > further from Josh about it, so assumed he was working on stuff as > concerns that already ... Either a transfer or a sublicense would work. I don't that that the decision between the two needs to be made now. -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
> Until recently, the Linux trademark wasn't being enforced either, to the > best of my knowledge ... obviously it doesn't take much to change that, > if this initiative that is being discussed is making headway ... Well actually that isn't the case. The reason AFAIK that the Linux trademark became such a headliner is that some blow hard that didn't have anything to do with Linux trademarked it, and then lost a subsequent court case to Linus on retrieval of the mark. Since Linus has had the mark it has been enforced and there has been a policy in place. Don't get me wrong, I am all for an official policy on the PostgreSQL trademark that is determined by Core and/or a neutral official entity such as a non-profit. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> Why not just put the mark into the public domain? I think it might >> already be there. > > > Well that was kind of my point about not being enforceable. The > PostgreSQL trademark would be almost impossible to enforce as it never > has been encforced. > First IANAL. This is not legal analysis or advice, just my opinion.... Well... There are two questions here. THe first is... "Is the PostgreSQL trademark enforceable?" and the second is "Should we make the PostgreSQL trademark enforceable?" I think that the concensus might be that at the moment it would be difficult to enforce the PostgreSQL trademark. I don't see concensus on the latter issue however. > That is the same reason that the Open Source Initiative or whatever > they call themselves gave up on the (tm) OpenSource. Open Source(tm) would be a lot harder to enforce than PostgreSQL. I mean you can file for a trademark and then go attempting to enforce it but if the term is in common use that is going to be *tough.* This is the problem for trying to trademark "Open Source." It is hard to show why "Open Source" as an image should be associated with a specific entity. PostgreSQL is in a bit of a better spot. There aren't that many products out there calling themselves "PostgreSQL." There are, OTOH, a lot of other companies calling themselves "Open Source." This is the exact reason I chose the name "Metatron" for my company name. I.e. that any trademarks would be hard to enforce due to the number of companies using it without a coherent trademark image. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> Well, the Linux Trademark Institute has been around for a long time, and >> I have seen places where they state that the Linux trademark is owned by >> Linus. >> >> I think in this case they are doing much more damage to Linux by >> enforcing the trademark than the possible damage caused by negative use >> of the trademark. >> >> I am worried about companies being scared to promote PostgreSQL because >> of trademark concerns. > > > Which was why, as we discussed on -core, Josh was looking into > drafting up a "Public License" for this ... you may have been > travelling while this was discussed though? That is a capital idea. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting
This morning on slashdot: "6 years ago Mr Poet submitted the story Comparing MySQL and PostgreSQL. Since then both databases have evolved to wherever they are today. Are the points raised 6 years ago still valid? What has changed? Are there other things to consider since then (e.g. licensing)?" This is certainly a valid question since both databases have had to evolve with the times. Have these applications been specialized to fit a particular niche market or are they both still strong competitors? What does the horizon look like for the development of these programs, especially considering the recent MySQL partnership with SCO? http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/05/09/05/1514246.shtml?tid=221&tid=4 Anton -- Dogs come when they're called; cats take a message and get back to you later. ~Mary Bly
adw@obsidian.co.za (Anton de Wet) writes: > This morning on slashdot: > > "6 years ago Mr Poet submitted the story Comparing MySQL and > PostgreSQL. Since then both databases have evolved to wherever they > are today. Are the points raised 6 years ago still valid? What has > changed? Are there other things to consider since then > (e.g. licensing)?" This is certainly a valid question since both > databases have had to evolve with the times. Have these applications > been specialized to fit a particular niche market or are they both > still strong competitors? What does the horizon look like for the > development of these programs, especially considering the recent MySQL > partnership with SCO? > > http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/05/09/05/1514246.shtml?tid=221&tid=4 And this is expected to be highly insightful precisely why? You do realize that "marketing partnerships" are kind of the point of having a company; that's what companies do... If the announcement was that $8M would be spent on, well, anything, that would be of some significance. Announcing a (largely cost-free) "marketing partnership" is not... -- output = reverse("gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc") http://cbbrowne.com/info/linuxdistributions.html No, I believe it's his real name... he's "unique". Think Duh-fferent.
Chris Browne wrote: > adw@obsidian.co.za (Anton de Wet) writes: > >>This morning on slashdot: >> >>"6 years ago Mr Poet submitted the story Comparing MySQL and Interesting tidbit of history... I am Mr Poet. Talk about the past coming back at you. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/