Thread: Steering committee responce to Great Bridge LLC
In January of this year, the PostgreSQL steering committee (http://www.postgresql.org/devel-contrib.html) was approached by Landmark Communications (http://www.landmarkcom.com) to discuss the creation of a new company to provide commercial support for PostgreSQL and other open-source software. On March 3-5, Landmark sponsored a gathering of the steering committee in San Francisco. This was the first time the steering committee had ever met face-to-face, and we'd like to thank Landmark for making that possible. Several sessions included Landmark corporate staff and explored how Landmark might work with PostgreSQL. Landmark has now publicly announced the formation of their company, called Great Bridge (http://www.greatbridge.com), to provide commercial support for PostgreSQL. Involvement of commercial companies with Open Source projects such as PostgreSQL leads to new and, for some of us, unwelcome issues of confidentiality, and we respected Landmark's request for confidentiality in the time preceding their announcement of Great Bridge. We are happy that Landmark/Great Bridge have chosen to use PostgreSQL in their business, and look forward to seeing future contributions from them for our Open Source effort. Landmark has expressed interest in hiring PostgreSQL developers to work for their new company. Some individuals are already in negotiations with Landmark and will make announcements at the appropriate time. We believe this is only good news for PostgreSQL. This will give PostgreSQL two commercial support organizations: PostgreSQL Inc. (http://www.pgsql.com) and Great Bridge. PostgreSQL's increased visibility and credibility in the business world will help the project continue to grow. We encourage other interested companies to contact the steering committee to discuss how they might work with the project for the benefit of all. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 10:46:01AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > In January of this year, the PostgreSQL steering committee > (http://www.postgresql.org/devel-contrib.html) was approached by > Landmark Communications (http://www.landmarkcom.com) to discuss the > creation of a new company to provide commercial support for PostgreSQL > and other open-source software. Now we will see the real world test of the (occasional) license debates that have occured in the postgres community. One of the major points made by the Berkeley/X license proponents is that these licenses are more acceptable to commerical enterprises, since they allow the commercial concerns to keep their changes private. The major complaint from the GPL crowd has been that that these licenses allow commerical concerns to take the existing code private, along with their changes. From reading the PR materials available, it sounds like GreatBridge wants to Do the Right Thing. I'd like to see a little more up front about what being 'active contributing members of the [pgsql] community' means: Will GB follow the RedHat model, and commit to releasing code to any changes they make? (Note that RedHat has no choice in this for the Linux kernel) Or will there be a 'GreatBridge' version of pgsql, perhaps with extended features? I hope GB realizes that trying to take on the 'big boys' with proprietary extensions is unlikely to be a winning strategy. > Landmark has expressed interest in hiring PostgreSQL developers to work > for their new company. Some individuals are already in negotiations > with Landmark and will make announcements at the appropriate time. Here lies the potentially most exiting, but also most dangerous part, for the pgsql public at large: the core team has done amazing work, in their spare time. Imagine how productive they'd be working on pgsql full time! However, the big fear is: will GB take pgsql effectively private, by hiring away key developers? Even if GB commits to making all the code they develop available under the existing license, this has a more subtle downside: schedule pressure. As an avocation, pgsql benefits from the 'inspirational' effect: when the developers are inspired by a good idea, they work long and hard. If the creative juices run dry, it can be put aside. As vocation, there's always deadline pressure. We've already been seeing some of this, as various people deploy pgsql in mission critical locations: sometimes, they need a feature, and need it now, no matter if the implementation isn't the best for future expandability. Hopefully, this sort of degradation of the codebase can be minimized by open source's main virtue: peer code review. Currently, nothing goes in the tree (or at least, stays in the tree very long) if it's a poor implementation. This is the gate keeper function that Linus plays for the Linux kernel, and our core plays for us, (although Bruce has said he's never meet a patch he doesn't like, Tom, Marc, Thomas, or someone else will usually jump on anything he commits that's a bit dodgy, like my code ;-) I hope they all maintain this same level of commitment to code quality, regardless of where their paycheck comes from. Having followed all the existing open source/commerical development projects currently under way, I think it's critical that GB not only adopt the open source license, but the open development model that has been so successful for pgsql to date. What about if/when they go public? The legal commitment to maximizing stockholder value can play havoc with the best of intentions. I can only hope the the principals at GB have a real understanding of open source and open development, and remember the story of the goose and the golden eggs: short term gain could lead to long term loss. As a sometime patch contributor, but not truly a pgsql developer, yet (although I like to say 'we' and 'our' ;-), I will commit to continuing as I have: to learn as much as I can about pgsql, help out on the mailing lists, and develop new functionality that I need for my uses of postgresql, hopefully to be included back into the main tree. Welcome to GB, their people, and their new commitment to postgresql. We'll all be watching you closely, hoping you all can live up to the promise of helping make pgsql the success we (as it's users) know it can be. Also know that if need be, we can fork the project, and carry on in your absence, as we have up until now. Not a threat, just a friendly reminder: it's a major strength of open source, to not be tied to someone else's corporate goals. Ross -- Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu> NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer Computer and Information Technology Institute Rice University, 6100 S. Main St., Houston, TX 77005
"Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@wallace.ece.rice.edu> writes:
> Now we will see the real world test of the (occasional) license debates
> that have occured in the postgres community. One of the major points made
> by the Berkeley/X license proponents is that these licenses are more
> acceptable to commerical enterprises, since they allow the commercial
> concerns to keep their changes private. The major complaint from the
> GPL crowd has been that that these licenses allow commerical concerns
> to take the existing code private, along with their changes.
Yes. BSD-style licensing is clearly more acceptable to businesses
than GPL-style, as the Postgres community understood all along.
I think GB's choice of Postgres as the database they wanted to work
with is not unrelated to that.
BTW, while we're mentioning licenses: one of the interesting things
that's emerged from core's discussions with Landmark/GB is some
suggestions from their corporate legal counsel for clarifying the
language of the Postgres license, and in particular bringing it into
sync with the realities of copyright law under the Berne convention,
which are (if I understood him correctly) that the copyright is actually
distributed among all the contributors. This is something that people
have expressed concern about repeatedly on pghackers, so it seems to me
that listening to a real lawyer on the subject will be a very good thing
to do. I do *not* want to get into that discussion today, just let
folks know that there will be an upcoming thread about it pretty soon.
We wanted to postpone the discussion until Great Bridge was out in the
open and could allow Rusty Friddell, their counsel, to answer questions
about his suggestions directly. (And just to defuse any fears
beforehand, there will be no license changes without full discussion
and consensus from the pghackers community. This decision is not
core's to make, but the community's.)
> Will GB follow the RedHat model, and commit to releasing code to any
> changes they make? (Note that RedHat has no choice in this for the Linux
> kernel) Or will there be a 'GreatBridge' version of pgsql, perhaps with
> extended features? I hope GB realizes that trying to take on the 'big
> boys' with proprietary extensions is unlikely to be a winning strategy.
Ned should probably answer this directly, but I will say that I believe
that GB is building itself on the assumption that open-source
development is better than proprietary development. They'd be fools to
go up against Oracle with a proprietary system and try to play Oracle's
game on Oracle's turf. They're not fools.
> Here lies the potentially most exiting, but also most dangerous part,
> for the pgsql public at large: the core team has done amazing work,
> in their spare time. Imagine how productive they'd be working on pgsql
> full time! However, the big fear is: will GB take pgsql effectively
> private, by hiring away key developers?
This is something that core has agonized over since the start of this
affair. How can we open up the project to (more) commercial
participation, without destroying the open-source dynamics that have
made the project successful in the first place? We don't have all the
answers, and maybe not any. One thing we have agreed to is that there
must not be an unseemly fraction of core members working for the same
company. With six people on core, probably about two working at the
same company would be a reasonable limit.
> Even if GB commits to making all the code they develop available under the
> existing license, this has a more subtle downside: schedule pressure. As
> an avocation, pgsql benefits from the 'inspirational' effect: when the
> developers are inspired by a good idea, they work long and hard. If
> the creative juices run dry, it can be put aside. As vocation, there's
> always deadline pressure.
Yes, this concerns us too. We do not want to see a large fraction of
the development effort coming from any one company, even if they do
contribute all their work back to the project, because their company
priorities might cause them to take shortcuts that shouldn't have been
taken. Core will have an even greater responsibility in future to review
incoming patches and work proposals to make sure that the project moves
forward with consistent goals and design practices. This might mean
that the core committee needs to be enlarged further, or that we need to
have an almost-inner-circle group of secondary reviewers who can help.
I think that Postgres is now starting a new phase of life, as it moves
further into business acceptance. Our challenge is to keep the project
alive and dynamic, and not sacrifice the ideals that have brought it so
far. It will not be easy, but the alternative to growth is stagnation.
We must be optimistic that we can meet the challenge.
regards, tom lane
> Having followed all the existing open source/commerical development > projects currently under way, I think it's critical that GB not only > adopt the open source license, but the open development model that > has been so successful for pgsql to date. Agreed, it's very critical. So far, my feeling is that they follow more business-like model than open one, but probably 1. they need time to learn new model 2. just start new business and so very busy with many things to do Will see... Vadim
Hello all, I responded to Ross' post yesterday, but it looks like my reply didn't make it onto the list. So I'm re-sending... sorry for the delay: -- Thanks for your thoughtful post. Let me refer you (and everyone else) to the Slashdot discussion going on now... I think/hope it will answer a lot of your questions. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/05/09/0927203&cid=118 I'll try to respond to a few points individually here too: > From reading the PR materials available, it sounds like GreatBridge wants > to Do the Right Thing. I'd like to see a little more up front about what > being 'active contributing members of the [pgsql] community' means: > > Will GB follow the RedHat model, and commit to releasing code to any > changes they make? (Note that RedHat has no choice in this for the Linux > kernel) Or will there be a 'GreatBridge' version of pgsql, perhaps with > extended features? I hope GB realizes that trying to take on the 'big > boys' with proprietary extensions is unlikely to be a winning strategy. Heck no. We have no interest in any kind of proprietary fork. As far as code goes, everything we write will go straight back into the open source stew, for proper review by the Committed. > However, the big fear is: will GB take pgsql effectively > private, by hiring away key developers? Nope, because anyone who works for GB will also be working for the PostgreSQL project. > I hope they all maintain this same level of commitment to code > quality, regardless of where their paycheck comes from. Having followed > all the existing open source/commerical development projects currently > under way, I think it's critical that GB not only adopt the open source > license, but the open development model that has been so successful for > pgsql to date. Absolutely. We have no intention of supplanting the core group in peer review / patch approval. We expect that any PostgreSQL developers we hire will continue in the role they currently have in the development process - and to the extent that our other, internal developers create code, their work will have to be judged in the same meritocracy as everyone else. > What about if/when they go public? The legal commitment to maximizing > stockholder value can play havoc with the best of intentions. I can only > hope the the principals at GB have a real understanding of open source and > open development, and remember the story of the goose and the golden eggs: > short term gain could lead to long term loss. I talk about this a little in the Slashdot thread - but the short answer is that Landmark Communications, the parent company, has been privately held for the better part of 100 years, and doesn't need public money or short-sighted shareholders and day traders. We're in this for the long haul. When and if we do decide to go public, it will only be because we think it's the best thing for the core mission of the business - which is to support the adoption of open source software solutions by mainstream business users. That's the standard by which we'll judge all such strategic decisions. > Welcome to GB, their people, and their new commitment to postgresql. We'll > all be watching you closely, hoping you all can live up to the promise of > helping make pgsql the success we (as it's users) know it can be. Thanks! BTW, we're already users ourselves- a number of our businesses are already using Postgres, and the level of use in some instances is significant enough to merit a separate press release (more on that, of course, at the appropriate time.. ;-) Best, Ned Lilly VP, Hacker Relations
Hi Ed, Hmm... viewed through that prism, whether it's "jaded and cynical" or not, I can see your concern. Our chairman, Frank Batten, Jr. understood the power of open source software development when the Red Hat guys came calling several years ago - few other people at Landmark did, and so the company passed, and Frank made a personal investment. Over the past few years, both through his involvement with Red Hat and our own IT experience in our various operating businesses, we've become big institutional believers in (and users of) open source as well. That's what Frank's dad was referring to. Who knows if Red Hat will be a successful business in the long haul? But I'd submit that they've done a pretty good job at getting Linux and other open source products in front of more people, and that's a good thing. Look, the press likes to write about crazy stock market stuff. They're less interested in long tuples and query tree redesign. We (Great Bridge) don't care about the stock market. We do care about building a business that will advance the adoption of open source and PostgreSQL in particular in the business world, by providing excellent service and support to customers that are willing to pay for it. After six months of homework, we came to the conclusion that there is in fact a business here- and four guys from Landmark corporate believed in the business enough to jump out of the executive suite to build a startup business. That's exactly how The Weather Channel got started 18 years ago. If you're curious about Landmark, I'd encourage you to check us out (www.landmarkcom.com). As I mentioned, the company remains privately held - including well-known national properties like The Weather Channel, weather.com, and Trader Publishing (Auto Trader, Boat Trader, etc.) We've published the newspaper in my home town, Norfolk, Virginia, for 100 years. We build businesses to last - but don't take my word for it, we've got a record to prove it. Regards, Ned Lilly Ed Loehr wrote: > It is interesting to note the CNet article's comments regarding Landmark > Frank Batten, Jr.'s Redhat jackpot winnings. A more palatable and > consistent response to this one, IMO: Some saavy Landmark investors see a > major opportunity to harvest pgsql value on the open market for huge > near-term profits via IPO/sale ala Redhat, and that all this may well > result in significant benefits to the OSS postgresql project and certain > postgresql core developers. Am I being jaded and cynical? > > "Great Bridge, though consisting of only four employees > today, has grand ambitions, including a planned expansion > to 120 employees and the ultimate possibility of going > public, Ritter said." > - CNet, siting Al Ritter, Great Bridge CEO > (http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1841316.html?tag=st.ne.ron.lthd.ni) > > Note the "ultimate possibility." That's not about Landmark "needing public > money or short-sighted shareholders and day traders"; it's about an > opportunity for very large near-term profits. Absolutely nothing wrong > with that, but let's call a spade a spade here. It might be instructive to > note that Mr. Batten, Jr., has reportedly already personally harvested tens > of millions of dollars from his Redhat investment and resigned his position > from Redhat as chairman. > > "He was way ahead of us," Ritter said. > His father, Frank Batten, quipped, "Frank Jr. has a > red hat, and I have a red face," Ritter recalled. The > upshot was that Landmark began searching for a new > open-source software package to capitalize on. > - (same CNet article) > > That's not really what comes to mind when someone says they are "in it for > the long haul". > > Regards, > Ed Loehr