Thread: Rebranding PostgreSQL
Guys, In our effort to distribute PostgreSQL to our customers, our higher ups would like to reduce the visibility that it is indeed PostgreSQL for a number of reasons at a few of our customer sites (particularly because these particular customers are very wary of open source). I know the license allows rebranding, but is there a document anywhere that specifies just what you have to do to do it? Is it as simple as regexing strings in the source, compiling, and renaming the exectuables? Or is it fraught with twisty little passages? Thanks, John Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485
john.bender@hushmail.com wrote: > Guys, > > In our effort to distribute PostgreSQL to our customers, our higher > ups would like to reduce the visibility that it is indeed > PostgreSQL for a number of reasons at a few of our customer sites > (particularly because these particular customers are very wary of > open source). > > I know the license allows rebranding, but is there a document > anywhere that specifies just what you have to do to do it? Is it as > simple as regexing strings in the source, compiling, and renaming > the exectuables? Or is it fraught with twisty little passages? Wow, we never got that question before. There is no legal requirement that people know they are running PostgreSQL, and some products do not use PostgreSQL in their name, so on that front you are fine. However, keep in mind that the changes you are suggesting will have a cost associated with them, in doing the changes, and finding all the place where the changes are required. PostgreSQL is pretty complex and even changing error messages can make things like internationalization or tests for specific messages in interface libraries fail. Basically, there isn't anything magic to the process except understanding all the applicable code well enough to know your changes are safe and thorough. Ultimately, you might end up reinforcing your users' bias, not because open source is unreliable, but because your version is. -- 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 Wed, 2005-11-16 at 11:05, Bruce Momjian wrote: > john.bender@hushmail.com wrote: > > Guys, > > > > In our effort to distribute PostgreSQL to our customers, our higher > > ups would like to reduce the visibility that it is indeed > > PostgreSQL for a number of reasons at a few of our customer sites > > (particularly because these particular customers are very wary of > > open source). > > > > I know the license allows rebranding, but is there a document > > anywhere that specifies just what you have to do to do it? Is it as > > simple as regexing strings in the source, compiling, and renaming > > the exectuables? Or is it fraught with twisty little passages? > > Wow, we never got that question before. There is no legal requirement > that people know they are running PostgreSQL, and some products do not > use PostgreSQL in their name, so on that front you are fine. > > However, keep in mind that the changes you are suggesting will have a > cost associated with them, in doing the changes, and finding all the > place where the changes are required. PostgreSQL is pretty complex and > even changing error messages can make things like internationalization > or tests for specific messages in interface libraries fail. > > Basically, there isn't anything magic to the process except > understanding all the applicable code well enough to know your changes > are safe and thorough. > > Ultimately, you might end up reinforcing your users' bias, not because > open source is unreliable, but because your version is. If they don't really want to get into the "we produce our flavor of PostgreSQL called XYZ" business, maybe they should resell some flavor from someone else then? Seems to me education of the people who are wary of open source is the answer here, but some people are harder to teach than others.
<john.bender@hushmail.com> writes:
> In our effort to distribute PostgreSQL to our customers, our higher
> ups would like to reduce the visibility that it is indeed
> PostgreSQL for a number of reasons at a few of our customer sites
> (particularly because these particular customers are very wary of
> open source).
> I know the license allows rebranding, but is there a document
> anywhere that specifies just what you have to do to do it? Is it as
> simple as regexing strings in the source, compiling, and renaming
> the exectuables? Or is it fraught with twisty little passages?
The license may allow it, but you really need a fair amount of chutzpah
to expect that people help you with it ...
regards, tom lane
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 09:20:26 -0800 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >The license may allow it, but you really need a fair amount of >chutzpah >to expect that people help you with it ... Hah...I certainly agree. Keep in mind though...we're not actually selling them the database. It's not my intention to rebrand the database and *sell* it. We simply want to use PostgreSQL to leverage our application's capabilities. The app currently runs on the customer's supplied databases (Sybase, Oracle, and Access (gulp) in a few sites). We're not proposing to charge them for the database, and believe me, they wouldn't buy in. They already have to part of the game covered. I'm a long time user, and fan, and a open source advocate in general. I think PostgreSQL is the way of the future. I'm also the shot caller primarily on our app's technology, and I'd like to standardize as much as possible on developing solely for PostgreSQL. The multi db support has provided an endless supply of headaches. We can provide PostgreSQL for free to the customer, and most have been very open to the idea. We'll provide what administration is needed. There are a few obstinate anti-open source customers though, that prevent my plan from moving forward. They've bought into whatever hype they've read and just simply say no. Now, that said, they're fairly non-technical and probably had never heard of PostgreSQL before we presented our plan. So, is it a little shady to want to slide PostgreSQL in under the radar? I'm simply trying to downplay what it is...it's my take that what they don't know won't hurt them. Sounds like rebranding would be a significantly difficult task. Perhaps I'll just remove all menu entries and leave it at that. Any thoughts or suggestions are appreciated. And please, don't take offense to the question ;) Thanks, John Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485
Education is the best way to go. How are you going to slide in postgres? "Hey guys, we can get rid of all your diverse databases and replace them with this black box I found here." Sooner or later your anti-OSS friends are going to find out you tricked them, and what happens then? If your clients have serious concerns with open source, address them. If they don't, call them on it. If they're in charge (and clients often are) and they insist on paying money for inferior software, show them what it will really cost them. If they still want to pay - hey, it's not your money that's being wasted. On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, john.bender@hushmail.com wrote: > So, is it a little shady to want to slide PostgreSQL in under the > radar? I'm simply trying to downplay what it is...it's my take that > what they don't know won't hurt them.
On Nov 16, 2005, at 1:09 PM, <john.bender@hushmail.com> <john.bender@hushmail.com> wrote: > There are a few obstinate anti-open source customers though, that > prevent my plan from moving forward. They've bought into whatever > hype they've read and just simply say no. Now, that said, they're > fairly non-technical and probably had never heard of PostgreSQL > before we presented our plan. how would postgres be exposed to them anyhow? wouldn't it just sit behind the scenes of your front-end? if they're poking around the process table, just change the name of the postmaster executable and the socket it creates to "johnsdb" or some such. the real trick would have been to sell it in a better way. don't mention open source or antyhing -- just say we have our own in-house DB we can provide at reduced cost to supporting your pre-installed Oracle. given them too much information was a mistake, IMHO.
john.bender@hushmail.com writes: > There are a few obstinate anti-open source customers though, that > prevent my plan from moving forward. They've bought into whatever > hype they've read and just simply say no. Now, that said, they're > fairly non-technical and probably had never heard of PostgreSQL > before we presented our plan. > > So, is it a little shady to want to slide PostgreSQL in under the > radar? I'm simply trying to downplay what it is...it's my take that > what they don't know won't hurt them. Well, I have seen SAP AG deploy stuff like Ghostscript and Apache (under their various varying license) as components of their applications without anyone saying "boo." In SAPGUI, the "front end," they had parts of Ghostscript in there, complete with copyright messages and everything. But since all of this stuff was "stowed" in a subdirectory that they didn't really call attention to, nobody generally notices. I would imagine that if you simply stow components where you choose to stow them, and say, "this is part of what we always install for all our customers," and never bring OSS up as an issue, they probably won't notice they were going to have an issue with it. For these people, you don't say, "Oh yes, this is open source; you're agreeing to the BSDL." Instead, the "story" is more like: "We have acquired proper licensing rights for all of the subcomponents that we use from their respective producers and vendors." -- "cbbrowne","@","cbbrowne.com" http://cbbrowne.com/info/spreadsheets.html I knew you weren't really interested. -- Marvin the Paranoid Android
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 14:19:28 -0500, Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org> wrote: > > if they're poking around the process table, just change the name of > the postmaster executable and the socket it creates to "johnsdb" or > some such. I think you need to be careful with that. The last time I checked, postmaster checked what name it was running under and behaved differently depending on what it was called.
On Nov 16, 2005, at 4:17 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 14:19:28 -0500, > Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org> wrote: >> >> if they're poking around the process table, just change the name of >> the postmaster executable and the socket it creates to "johnsdb" or >> some such. > > I think you need to be careful with that. The last time I checked, > postmaster > checked what name it was running under and behaved differently > depending > on what it was called. well obviously you would have to take that into account when renaming... :-) in my head I had thought of it but just didn't type it out....
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 10:09:51AM -0800, john.bender@hushmail.com wrote:
>
> So, is it a little shady to want to slide PostgreSQL in under the
> radar? I'm simply trying to downplay what it is...it's my take that
> what they don't know won't hurt them.
I appreciate what you're trying to do. At the same time, why do you
think your customers will be more willing to go for John's Database
than some community product called PostgreSQL? (And yes, I suspect
there _are_ such people.)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
"The year's penultimate month" is not in truth a good way of saying
November.
--H.W. Fowler
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > I appreciate what you're trying to do. At the same time, why do you > think your customers will be more willing to go for John's Database > than some community product called PostgreSQL? (And yes, I suspect > there _are_ such people.) Maybe he is going to call it "Orakle"? :) - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200511161737 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFDe7TKvJuQZxSWSsgRAsHeAJ0eaiY58hbfU8CCehyNxTo5uGIu8QCgmyxL VDTXoeXupwD79/zYM+Zfgm8= =yYtZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > I appreciate what you're trying to do. At the same time, why do you > think your customers will be more willing to go for John's Database > than some community product called PostgreSQL? (And yes, I suspect > there _are_ such people.) > That's easy. The same reason people used to buy Mammoth PostgreSQL (not the replicator version). There is an assumption that there is a throat to choke, or sue as the case may be. What most people fail to realize is that almost ALL software has a maximum of a 90 day warranty with a limitation of liability to the cost of the software. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > A > >
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:50:37 -0800 Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> >I would imagine that if you simply stow components where you >choose to >stow them, and say, "this is part of what we always install for >all >our customers," and never bring OSS up as an issue, they probably >won't notice they were going to have an issue with it. A very good point, and probably the tactic I'm going to use. Rather than rebranding, downplaying the use might work. So, I'll forge ahead and simply deploy it in a somewhat unobtrusive, unobvious way. If it becomes a problem, I'll seek to educate and work with our sales guys to put a positive spin on the issue. I'm actually pretty proud of the way our app works with PostgreSQL, and I think once our problem customers see how well it runs, their fears, sprung from whatever source, will dissipate. The silent capabilities of the installer will do nicely in this regard...I can wrap it into my current NSIS script and simply call out to the installer. However, I need to create a empty database and initial user after install is complete. Is there any way to "hook" custom scripts into the installer's process? If not, what ways would you approach this? It'd have to be self-contained in some way, as I cannot guarantee any particular scripting language will be installed on the target machines. Thanks for all your suggestions. John Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485
> The silent capabilities of the installer will do nicely in > this regard...I can wrap it into my current NSIS script and > simply call out to the installer. However, I need to create a > empty database and initial user after install is complete. Is > there any way to "hook" custom scripts into the installer's > process? If not, what ways would you approach this? It'd have > to be self-contained in some way, as I cannot guarantee any > particular scripting language will be installed on the target > machines. Nope, no way to hook that in unless you want to build your own MSI. You could create a hook in pginst.wxs and add the CA, and rebuild the MSI. BUt then you'd have to rebuild the MSI yourself each time you get a new version etc, which may not be what you want. I don't know how NSIS works, but I'm sure you can write extension functions for it, right? The safest way would be to write one in C statically linked to libpq, and just have that one connect to the newly installed database and create the required objects. That way you don't rely on any external scripting languages or DLLs. //Magnus
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:19:28PM -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2005, at 1:09 PM, <john.bender@hushmail.com>
> <john.bender@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
> >There are a few obstinate anti-open source customers though, that
> >prevent my plan from moving forward. They've bought into whatever
> >hype they've read and just simply say no. Now, that said, they're
> >fairly non-technical and probably had never heard of PostgreSQL
> >before we presented our plan.
>
> how would postgres be exposed to them anyhow? wouldn't it just sit
> behind the scenes of your front-end?
Backups. You really need to explain pg_dump to the end user.
> the real trick would have been to sell it in a better way. don't
> mention open source or antyhing -- just say we have our own in-house
> DB we can provide at reduced cost to supporting your pre-installed
> Oracle. given them too much information was a mistake, IMHO.
We "embed" postgresql in our product[1]. We don't hide the fact - we
mention it in our pre-sales material and include docs about how to
access the backend DB via psql, JDBC and ODBC and stress that it's a
very standard, widely supported database that's compatible with many
third party tools and reporting utilities. What worries potential
customers most is the need to do maintenance on a database they're not
familiar with so we have app level code to do all the maintenance
needed.
We're selling mostly into large enterprise, and while we've had one or
two requests to support Oracle as well as Postgresql (uhm, no. life is
too short...) we've found that making it very clear that the end users
do not need to become Postgresql DBAs, and that Postgresql is a solid
enterprise grade database has been enough to make potential customers
happy.
Cheers,
Steve
[1] Almost vanilla build, but we bundle it in the same tarball as the
application and do all the initdb work needed behind the scenes
as part of our installation script, include the PG startup and
shutdown in our rc scripts and have an autovacuum kinda-equivalent
embedded in the app.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 03:26:19PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> That's easy. The same reason people used to buy Mammoth PostgreSQL (not
> the replicator version).
Well, yeah-no. Mammoth was coming from someone who was explicitly in
the business of selling support for it, and was selling to people who
already had picked PostgreSQL. But the OP was suggesting this was a
way around the "We don't use nuttin' but O-ra-cle 'round here" crowd;
and I don't see how "Magic Blackbox Database" is somehow better than
"Postgres" to those people.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The fact that technology doesn't work is no bar to success in the marketplace.
--Philip Greenspun
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 17:37, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > I appreciate what you're trying to do. At the same time, why do you
> > think your customers will be more willing to go for John's Database
> > than some community product called PostgreSQL? (And yes, I suspect
> > there _are_ such people.)
>
> Maybe he is going to call it "Orakle"? :)
>
I was thinking he could call it "my-sql"...
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
>> Maybe he is going to call it "Orakle"? :) > > I was thinking he could call it "my-sql"... Call it "Your SQL" :-) -- "cbbrowne","@","gmail.com" http://cbbrowne.com/info/slony.html "...Roxanne falls in love with Christian, a chevalier in Cyrano's regiment who hasn't got the brains God gave an eclair..." -- reviewer on NPR
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:19:28PM -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 2005, at 1:09 PM, <john.bender@hushmail.com>
>> <john.bender@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >There are a few obstinate anti-open source customers though, that
>> >prevent my plan from moving forward. They've bought into whatever
>> >hype they've read and just simply say no. Now, that said, they're
>> >fairly non-technical and probably had never heard of PostgreSQL
>> >before we presented our plan.
>>
>> how would postgres be exposed to them anyhow? wouldn't it just sit
>> behind the scenes of your front-end?
>
> Backups. You really need to explain pg_dump to the end user.
Unless you include a tool that internally performs a pg_dump, in
binary form, so they don't need to know about what it's doing, and so
that it doesn't show off being a raw text form that will clue them in
;-).
Think about any of the apps that used embedded DBs like Faircom,
Raima, and such; you'd need to run some extra module to do a "backup."
If the intent is to pretend PostgreSQL is being embedded, it's natural
for the results to have a shape like that...
--
output = reverse("moc.liamg" "@" "enworbbc")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/spreadsheets.html
"I've seen a look in dogs' eyes, a quickly vanishing look of amazed
contempt, and I am convinced that basically dogs think humans are
nuts." -- John Steinbeck
pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org wrote on 11/17/2005 12:33:11 PM: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:19:28PM -0500, Vivek Khera wrote: > > On Nov 16, 2005, at 1:09 PM, <john.bender@hushmail.com> > > <john.bender@hushmail.com> wrote: > > > > >There are a few obstinate anti-open source customers though, that > > >prevent my plan from moving forward. They've bought into whatever > > >hype they've read and just simply say no. Now, that said, they're > > >fairly non-technical and probably had never heard of PostgreSQL > > >before we presented our plan. <snip> You presented a plan to your customers. They roundly rejected it, for whatever reason. The above sounds like an assumption. You plan to go ahead with it anyway. At best you could lose customers. At worst you could lose your company.