Thread: Re: Re: [HACKERS] My new job
--- Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote: > > It is merely a conflict of interest issue. Same > issue in law as having > > attorney's from the same firm on the side of > defendant and plaintiff. If > > the plaintiff is a multi-million dollar client and > the defendant is > > pro-bono... there is concern about bias. > > > > Congratulations is in order for Mr. Momjian. I'm > not saying he should or > > shouldn't work for them. I'm just playing devil's > advocate. > > The interesting issue here is that law firms by > nature are adviserial. > My paper showed that most issues are actually ones > of companies managing > a shared resource, so the analogy is not quite > accurate. Great Bridge is interested in turning PostgreSQL into a world class database system. As users of PostgreSQL we all benefit from their paying Bruce (and whoever else) to work on it full time. It's not like Great Bridge wants to turn PostgreSQL into a pinball machine emulator. Extra care will need to be taken to make sure that pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org is still the central hacker clearing-house, but that shouldn't be too difficult. And if worse comes to worse and Great Bridge does try to take PostgreSQL in an unhealthy direction we can easily vote with our feet. After all, both Interbase and <gasp> MySQL are available under very liberal terms (as are previous and current versions of PostgreSQL which could even be forked). Great Bridge knows that, and they will undoubtedly do all they can to make sure that we users are happy. After all, they are essentially a service organization. I just don't see what the conflict might be. It's not like Great Bridge is going to hold Bruce's family hostage and force him to rewrite PostgreSQL in Cobol. In fact, Great Bridge had better treat their employees very well or they will find that their are greener pastures somewhere else. Not only would Great Bridge lose a very knowledgeable employee, but Bruce could take his source with him when he went to his new employer. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/
> Great Bridge is interested in turning PostgreSQL into > a world class database system. As users of PostgreSQL > we all benefit from their paying Bruce (and whoever > else) to work on it full time. It's not like Great > Bridge wants to turn PostgreSQL into a pinball machine > emulator. All right, who leaked the Great Bridge product plans. :-) -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us 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
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Great Bridge is interested in turning PostgreSQL into > > a world class database system. As users of PostgreSQL > > we all benefit from their paying Bruce (and whoever > > else) to work on it full time. It's not like Great > > Bridge wants to turn PostgreSQL into a pinball machine > > emulator. > > All right, who leaked the Great Bridge product plans. :-) "He's a PostgreSQL wizard, there's got to be a twist..." -- ---------------------------------------------------- Ned Lilly e: ned@greatbridge.com Vice President w: www.greatbridge.com Evangelism / Hacker Relations v: 757.233.5523 Great Bridge, LLC f: 757.233.5555
But think of the commercial possibilities for a PostgrePinball! :-) This was exactly my point earlier, it's not like GB is going to take PostgreSQL commercial or out of the Open Source community (they're business revolves around Open Source products) -- the same guys are developing it and they're heading in the same direction that they were 6 months ago before GB came onto the scene -- to a better RDBMS! What's in PostgreSQL's best interests is (I think) in Great Bridge's best interest. They want to sell products and services based on or around PostgreSQL. If anything I think we'll see PostgreSQL get a lot better now that the developers can make a living doing what they had previously done away from their "real job".. More power to GB, PostgreSQL and the core developers... -Mitch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> To: "Jason Earl" <jdearl@yahoo.com> Cc: "PostgreSQL-general" < > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:43 PM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] My new job > > Great Bridge is interested in turning PostgreSQL into > > a world class database system. As users of PostgreSQL > > we all benefit from their paying Bruce (and whoever > > else) to work on it full time. It's not like Great > > Bridge wants to turn PostgreSQL into a pinball machine > > emulator. > > All right, who leaked the Great Bridge product plans. :-) > > -- > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us > 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 >
> I just don't see what the conflict might be. It's not > like Great Bridge is going to hold Bruce's family > hostage and force him to rewrite PostgreSQL in Cobol. > In fact, Great Bridge had better treat their employees > very well or they will find that their are greener > pastures somewhere else. Not only would Great Bridge > lose a very knowledgeable employee, but Bruce could > take his source with him when he went to his new > employer. Well, there is a non-compete, and though I can't go into it in detail, it is not possible to do that if the new company is similar to Great Bridge. Of course, we all did this for free before, so we can certainly do that again. Clearly, each of us realizes we hold the trust of the group, and do not want to betray that trust. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us 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
Ned Lilly <ned@greatbridge.com> writes:
>>>> Bridge wants to turn PostgreSQL into a pinball machine
>>>> emulator.
>>
>> All right, who leaked the Great Bridge product plans. :-)
> "He's a PostgreSQL wizard, there's got to be a twist..."
rotfl ... where's the C&C warning on this?
regards, tom lane
Ah but remember... what is a "better RDBMS" to a company may be different than one for the open source community. Adam Lang Systems Engineer Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mitch Vincent" <mitch@venux.net> To: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 7:03 PM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] My new job > But think of the commercial possibilities for a PostgrePinball! > :-) > > This was exactly my point earlier, it's not like GB is going to take > PostgreSQL commercial or out of the Open Source community (they're business > revolves around Open Source products) -- the same guys are developing it and > they're heading in the same direction that they were 6 months ago before GB > came onto the scene -- to a better RDBMS! > > What's in PostgreSQL's best interests is (I think) in Great Bridge's best > interest. They want to sell products and services based on or around > PostgreSQL. If anything I think we'll see PostgreSQL get a lot better now > that the developers can make a living doing what they had previously done > away from their "real job".. More power to GB, PostgreSQL and the core > developers... > > -Mitch > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> > To: "Jason Earl" <jdearl@yahoo.com> > Cc: "PostgreSQL-general" < > > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:43 PM > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] My new job > > > > > Great Bridge is interested in turning PostgreSQL into > > > a world class database system. As users of PostgreSQL > > > we all benefit from their paying Bruce (and whoever > > > else) to work on it full time. It's not like Great > > > Bridge wants to turn PostgreSQL into a pinball machine > > > emulator. > > > > All right, who leaked the Great Bridge product plans. :-) > > > > -- > > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us > > 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 Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Adam Lang wrote: > Ah but remember... what is a "better RDBMS" to a company may be different > than one for the open source community. then that company is welcome to take the open source code, and distribute it under their own name ... it doesn't affect us any ... > > Adam Lang > Systems Engineer > Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mitch Vincent" <mitch@venux.net> > To: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 7:03 PM > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] My new job > > > > But think of the commercial possibilities for a PostgrePinball! > > :-) > > > > This was exactly my point earlier, it's not like GB is going to take > > PostgreSQL commercial or out of the Open Source community (they're > business > > revolves around Open Source products) -- the same guys are developing it > and > > they're heading in the same direction that they were 6 months ago before > GB > > came onto the scene -- to a better RDBMS! > > > > What's in PostgreSQL's best interests is (I think) in Great Bridge's best > > interest. They want to sell products and services based on or around > > PostgreSQL. If anything I think we'll see PostgreSQL get a lot better now > > that the developers can make a living doing what they had previously done > > away from their "real job".. More power to GB, PostgreSQL and the core > > developers... > > > > -Mitch > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> > > To: "Jason Earl" <jdearl@yahoo.com> > > Cc: "PostgreSQL-general" < > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:43 PM > > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] My new job > > > > > > > > Great Bridge is interested in turning PostgreSQL into > > > > a world class database system. As users of PostgreSQL > > > > we all benefit from their paying Bruce (and whoever > > > > else) to work on it full time. It's not like Great > > > > Bridge wants to turn PostgreSQL into a pinball machine > > > > emulator. > > > > > > All right, who leaked the Great Bridge product plans. :-) > > > > > > -- > > > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us > > > 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 > > > > > Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Adam Lang wrote: > Ah but remember... what is a "better RDBMS" to a company may be > different than one for the open source community. I'm not sure I see that... The one place where GB can get burned is if they spend lots of time/money implementing a feature and then attempt to recoup their investment by holding said feature back from the PGSQL source tree. If someone else duplicates that feature and it is accepted into the tree before GB has covered their expenses GB would now be out some amount of money and have at worst, a continual wart they would have to maintain outside the tree, or at best a consolidation of features with the opensource version of the feature. Having redundant code would be somewhere in the middle. </runon> The real question is this: At some point in the future the PostgreSQL project may have to delay integrating a feature in order to play nicely with the commercial ventures working with them. Will this cause problems? Will such a decision cause a split? -- | Matthew N. Dodd | '78 Datsun 280Z | '75 Volvo 164E | FreeBSD/NetBSD | | winter@jurai.net | 2 x '84 Volvo 245DL | ix86,sparc,pmax | | http://www.jurai.net/~winter | This Space For Rent | ISO8802.5 4ever |
"Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net> writes:
> The one place where GB can get burned is if they spend lots of time/money
> implementing a feature and then attempt to recoup their investment by
> holding said feature back from the PGSQL source tree.
I can say with a good deal of confidence that this is not part of GB's
vision of how to play the game. (Can't speak for pgsql.com or any other
potential commercial players, however.) GB is building their company on
the assumption that open source is the best way to develop software, so
it makes no sense to do any proprietary-style development.
I am more concerned about conflicts like "well, today I could work on
feature-or-bug-fix A that some paying customer of GB's is requesting,
or I could work on feature-or-bug-fix B that IMHO would be of wider
interest --- but isn't currently being requested by a paying customer".
Or worse, "paying customer FOO wants some feature that I think would
be actively bad for most people". To the extent that paying customers
are representative of the whole community, this shouldn't be a huge
problem, but I'm sure that it will come up.
> The real question is this: At some point in the future the PostgreSQL
> project may have to delay integrating a feature in order to play nicely
> with the commercial ventures working with them. Will this cause problems?
Hm, I'm having a hard time visualizing why this might happen. Could you
provide an example?
regards, tom lane
Correct...I'm not saying corporate is going to try to proprietize (or however you spell it :)) it. That I will say I don't think can happen... (Actually, under GPL, any modifications of the code have to be free also, correct?, so it can't really be proprietised unless they make an add-on that is private... but then postgres can be run and compiled without it). I mentioned off list a possible example. MySQL and/or PHP. They are open source, but their interest is in corporate. They go in directions that is not in the open source best interest, but in corporate best interest... granted, they aren't the same situation as postgres either, but the concern would be that if 50% or over of a core steering/direction group were employed by a single company, some direction may inadvertently taken that serves the company better than the open source. Also, this is not an attack that it would be done with evil intent. But, as many others have said, the core team seems to have a good hold on reality and their ethics, so it probably won't come to an issue. :) Adam Lang Systems Engineer Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net> Cc: "Adam Lang" <aalang@rutgersinsurance.com>; <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 3:31 AM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] My new job > I can say with a good deal of confidence that this is not part of GB's > vision of how to play the game. (Can't speak for pgsql.com or any other > potential commercial players, however.) GB is building their company on > the assumption that open source is the best way to develop software, so > it makes no sense to do any proprietary-style development. > > I am more concerned about conflicts like "well, today I could work on > feature-or-bug-fix A that some paying customer of GB's is requesting, > or I could work on feature-or-bug-fix B that IMHO would be of wider > interest --- but isn't currently being requested by a paying customer". > Or worse, "paying customer FOO wants some feature that I think would > be actively bad for most people". To the extent that paying customers > are representative of the whole community, this shouldn't be a huge > problem, but I'm sure that it will come up. > > > The real question is this: At some point in the future the PostgreSQL > > project may have to delay integrating a feature in order to play nicely > > with the commercial ventures working with them. Will this cause problems? > > Hm, I'm having a hard time visualizing why this might happen. Could you > provide an example? > > regards, tom lane
Adam Lang wrote: > (Actually, under GPL, any modifications of the code have to be free also, > correct?, so it can't really be proprietised unless they make an add-on that > is private... but then postgres can be run and compiled without it). PostgreSQL is not under the GPL. PostgreSQL has (and always had) a BSD license -- which means there is no license restriction on 'proprietizing' PostgreSQL code. > But, as many others have said, the core team seems to have a good hold on > reality and their ethics, so it probably won't come to an issue. :) This is the real safeguard. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
May bad... sometimes it is too easy assuming everything open source is GPL. Adam Lang Systems Engineer Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lamar Owen" <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> To: "Adam Lang" <aalang@rutgersinsurance.com> Cc: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:17 AM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] My new job > Adam Lang wrote: > > (Actually, under GPL, any modifications of the code have to be free also, > > correct?, so it can't really be proprietised unless they make an add-on that > > is private... but then postgres can be run and compiled without it). > > PostgreSQL is not under the GPL. PostgreSQL has (and always had) a BSD > license -- which means there is no license restriction on > 'proprietizing' PostgreSQL code. > > > But, as many others have said, the core team seems to have a good hold on > > reality and their ethics, so it probably won't come to an issue. :) > > This is the real safeguard. > > -- > Lamar Owen > WGCR Internet Radio > 1 Peter 4:11
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Adam Lang wrote:
> May bad... sometimes it is too easy assuming everything open source is GPL.
what a narrow view on open source ... most core internet open source
software is *not* GPL ... sendmail, INN, bind, isc-dhcp, apache, X11Rn,
etc ...
>
> Adam Lang
> Systems Engineer
> Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lamar Owen" <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
> To: "Adam Lang" <aalang@rutgersinsurance.com>
> Cc: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] My new job
>
>
> > Adam Lang wrote:
> > > (Actually, under GPL, any modifications of the code have to be free
> also,
> > > correct?, so it can't really be proprietised unless they make an add-on
> that
> > > is private... but then postgres can be run and compiled without it).
> >
> > PostgreSQL is not under the GPL. PostgreSQL has (and always had) a BSD
> > license -- which means there is no license restriction on
> > 'proprietizing' PostgreSQL code.
> >
> > > But, as many others have said, the core team seems to have a good hold
> on
> > > reality and their ethics, so it probably won't come to an issue. :)
> >
> > This is the real safeguard.
> >
> > --
> > Lamar Owen
> > WGCR Internet Radio
> > 1 Peter 4:11
>
>
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
"Adam Lang" <aalang@rutgersinsurance.com> writes:
> May bad... sometimes it is too easy assuming everything open source is GPL.
>
> > > correct?, so it can't really be proprietised unless they make an add-on
Of course both lincenses can be the basis of propriatery efforts(GPL and
Apache(BSD style licenses). My company used to prefere investing in GPL SW
because of the lack of the adv. clause.
regards,
Gunnar
On 13 Oct 2000, Gunnar R|nning wrote: > "Adam Lang" <aalang@rutgersinsurance.com> writes: > > > May bad... sometimes it is too easy assuming everything open source is GPL. > > > > > > > correct?, so it can't really be proprietised unless they make an add-on > > Of course both lincenses can be the basis of propriatery efforts(GPL and > Apache(BSD style licenses). My company used to prefere investing in GPL SW > because of the lack of the adv. clause. This is sort of a red herring. BSD style is just that, BSD style. _most_ BSD-style licenses (and _the_ BSD license of Regents of UC) removed the 'obnoxious advertising' clause. There are other reasons to prefer BSD-style over GPL, but this isn't one.
| > Of course both lincenses can be the basis of propriatery efforts(GPL and
| > Apache(BSD style licenses). My company used to prefere investing in GPL SW
| > because of the lack of the adv. clause.
| This is sort of a red herring. BSD style is just that, BSD style. _most_
| BSD-style licenses (and _the_ BSD license of Regents of UC) removed the
| 'obnoxious advertising' clause.
|
| There are other reasons to prefer BSD-style over GPL, but this isn't one.
True, but the advertising clause in _the_ BSD license was only just removed
a little while ago...
--
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when he is called
upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
-- Oscar Wilde