Thread: PostGIS in a commercial project
Hello, we are using PostgreSQL in our projects and would like to integrate PostGIS as well. Now PostGIS is licensed under the GPL and I wonder if we can use it in a commercial (customer specific) project then. The source code will not be made open source, but of course the customer will get the source code. Is it still OK to use the GPL licensed PostGIS in this case? Is that then considered a derivative work because the application will not work without PostGIS? Regards Thomas
I'm not a lawyer, cockroach, or hobbyist license enthusiast. Here's my impression.
First, I'm sure this must come IP a lot. Have you looked for a PostGIS licensing faq? Checked their mailing lists?
The issues with bundling MySQL were mostly around the GPL-licensed client library, something that doesn't apply to Pg's bsd-licensed libpq. You don't, AFAIK, need to link to any PostGIS client side library to use PostGIS, so that shouldn't be an issue.
For the server side stuff you would certainly have to distribute any postgis code changes, plus probably any server code changes since you're bundling them with postgis. Your SQL and data would be no more affected than a program is affected when compiled with the GPL-licensed gcc.
Personally I can't see any reason for concern. You'd have to distribute a GPL notice and/or PostGIS sources with the product to customers, of course, but that's not a biggie.
If you use something like a PostGIS extension to libpq / libpqtypes / etc client side, and that is also GPL, that might be a problem.
On Oct 21, 2011 3:26 PM, "Thomas Kellerer" <spam_eater@gmx.net> wrote:
Hello,
we are using PostgreSQL in our projects and would like to integrate PostGIS as well.
Now PostGIS is licensed under the GPL and I wonder if we can use it in a commercial (customer specific) project then.
The source code will not be made open source, but of course the customer will get the source code.
Is it still OK to use the GPL licensed PostGIS in this case?
Is that then considered a derivative work because the application will not work without PostGIS?
Regards
Thomas
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
At 09:26 21/10/2011, Thomas Kellerer wrote: >Hello, > >we are using PostgreSQL in our projects and would like to integrate >PostGIS as well. > >Now PostGIS is licensed under the GPL and I wonder if we can use it >in a commercial (customer specific) project then. >The source code will not be made open source, but of course the >customer will get the source code. > >Is it still OK to use the GPL licensed PostGIS in this case? >Is that then considered a derivative work because the application >will not work without PostGIS? If it's pure GPL, then postgresql is automagically relicenced to GPL, because postgresql allows relicencing and GPL force it to be GPL. Your source code must be in GPL too. Remember, it's a virus licence and has the same problem that Midas king had. >Regards >Thomas
At 09:26 21/10/2011, Thomas Kellerer wrote: >Hello, > >we are using PostgreSQL in our projects and would like to integrate >PostGIS as well. > >Now PostGIS is licensed under the GPL and I wonder if we can use it >in a commercial (customer specific) project then. >The source code will not be made open source, but of course the >customer will get the source code. > >Is it still OK to use the GPL licensed PostGIS in this case? >Is that then considered a derivative work because the application >will not work without PostGIS? If it's pure GPL, then postgresql is automagically relicenced to GPL, because postgresql allows relicencing and GPL force it to be GPL. Your source code must be in GPL too. Remember, it's a virus licence and has the same problem that Midas king had. >Regards >Thomas
Eduardo Morras, 21.10.2011 20:53: >> Now PostGIS is licensed under the GPL and I wonder if we can use it >> in a commercial (customer specific) project then. The source code >> will not be made open source, but of course the customer will get >> the source code. >> >> Is it still OK to use the GPL licensed PostGIS in this case? Is >> that then considered a derivative work because the application will >> not work without PostGIS? > > If it's pure GPL, then postgresql is automagically relicenced to GPL, > because postgresql allows relicencing and GPL force it to be GPL. > Your source code must be in GPL too. Remember, it's a virus licence > and has the same problem that Midas king had. Thanks for the answer. I think we'll better be safe than sorry and we will not use PostGIS then. Regards Thomas
Am 24/10/11 09:31, schrieb Thomas Kellerer: > Eduardo Morras, 21.10.2011 20:53: >>> Now PostGIS is licensed under the GPL and I wonder if we can use it >>> in a commercial (customer specific) project then. The source code >>> will not be made open source, but of course the customer will get >>> the source code. so there is no reason not to use GPL'ed software. GPL-ed software does not mean you have to release everything to the public. It means you are not allowed to give it away without source code. to whom you give it is not ruled by the licence. but to whom you give it, the reciever is free to do with it as sHe pleases (within the licences restriction ..) robert >>> >>> Is it still OK to use the GPL licensed PostGIS in this case? Is >>> that then considered a derivative work because the application will >>> not work without PostGIS? >> >> If it's pure GPL, then postgresql is automagically relicenced to GPL, >> because postgresql allows relicencing and GPL force it to be GPL. >> Your source code must be in GPL too. Remember, it's a virus licence >> and has the same problem that Midas king had. > > Thanks for the answer. > > I think we'll better be safe than sorry and we will not use PostGIS then. > > Regards > Thomas > > >
2011/10/24 Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net>: > Eduardo Morras, 21.10.2011 20:53: >>> >>> Now PostGIS is licensed under the GPL and I wonder if we can use it >>> in a commercial (customer specific) project then. The source code >>> will not be made open source, but of course the customer will get >>> the source code. >>> >>> Is it still OK to use the GPL licensed PostGIS in this case? Is >>> that then considered a derivative work because the application will >>> not work without PostGIS? >> >> If it's pure GPL, then postgresql is automagically relicenced to GPL, >> because postgresql allows relicencing and GPL force it to be GPL. >> Your source code must be in GPL too. Remember, it's a virus licence >> and has the same problem that Midas king had. > > Thanks for the answer. > > I think we'll better be safe than sorry and we will not use PostGIS then. It doesn't mean, so you must to publish your source code on net. Your codes have to be available to your customers. That is all. You can distribute your product as service, and then you don't need to show your codes. Regards Pavel Stehule > > Regards > Thomas > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general >
Il 24/10/11 10:03, Pavel Stehule ha scritto: > 2011/10/24 Thomas Kellerer<spam_eater@gmx.net>: >> Eduardo Morras, 21.10.2011 20:53: >>>> >>>> Now PostGIS is licensed under the GPL and I wonder if we can use it >>>> in a commercial (customer specific) project then. The source code >>>> will not be made open source, but of course the customer will get >>>> the source code. >>>> >>>> Is it still OK to use the GPL licensed PostGIS in this case? Is >>>> that then considered a derivative work because the application will >>>> not work without PostGIS? >>> >>> If it's pure GPL, then postgresql is automagically relicenced to GPL, >>> because postgresql allows relicencing and GPL force it to be GPL. >>> Your source code must be in GPL too. Remember, it's a virus licence >>> and has the same problem that Midas king had. >> >> Thanks for the answer. >> >> I think we'll better be safe than sorry and we will not use PostGIS then. > > It doesn't mean, so you must to publish your source code on net. Your > codes have to be available to your customers. That is all. You can > distribute your product as service, and then you don't need to show > your codes. > I am developing a web system that uses postgres and postgis, my source code is released under Apache2 licence (The customers has a copy of the whole source reposotory). The server interacts using jdbc and a C function for postgres. The client (java) interacts only with my server application. I think that this is safe, I'm doing wrong? My software has to use the GPL? if I can I'd like to use Apache2 licence for my source code. Regards Edoardo
On Monday, October 24, 2011 12:31:16 am Thomas Kellerer wrote: > Eduardo Morras, 21.10.2011 20:53: > >> Now PostGIS is licensed under the GPL and I wonder if we can use it > >> in a commercial (customer specific) project then. The source code > >> will not be made open source, but of course the customer will get > >> the source code. > >> > >> Is it still OK to use the GPL licensed PostGIS in this case? Is > >> that then considered a derivative work because the application will > >> not work without PostGIS? > > > > If it's pure GPL, then postgresql is automagically relicenced to GPL, > > because postgresql allows relicencing and GPL force it to be GPL. > > Your source code must be in GPL too. Remember, it's a virus licence > > and has the same problem that Midas king had. > > Thanks for the answer. > > I think we'll better be safe than sorry and we will not use PostGIS then. When in doubt read the source: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.php In particular sections 2 & 3. I see nothing that precludes you doing what you want. > > Regards > Thomas -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@gmail.com
Il 24/10/11 12:19, Pavel Stehule ha scritto: > 2011/10/24 Edoardo Panfili<edoardo@aspix.it>: >> Il 24/10/11 10:03, Pavel Stehule ha scritto: >>> >>> 2011/10/24 Thomas Kellerer<spam_eater@gmx.net>: >>>> >>>> Eduardo Morras, 21.10.2011 20:53: >>>>>> >>>>>> Now PostGIS is licensed under the GPL and I wonder if we can use it >>>>>> in a commercial (customer specific) project then. The source code >>>>>> will not be made open source, but of course the customer will get >>>>>> the source code. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it still OK to use the GPL licensed PostGIS in this case? Is >>>>>> that then considered a derivative work because the application will >>>>>> not work without PostGIS? >>>>> >>>>> If it's pure GPL, then postgresql is automagically relicenced to GPL, >>>>> because postgresql allows relicencing and GPL force it to be GPL. >>>>> Your source code must be in GPL too. Remember, it's a virus licence >>>>> and has the same problem that Midas king had. >>>> >>>> Thanks for the answer. >>>> >>>> I think we'll better be safe than sorry and we will not use PostGIS then. >>> >>> It doesn't mean, so you must to publish your source code on net. Your >>> codes have to be available to your customers. That is all. You can >>> distribute your product as service, and then you don't need to show >>> your codes. >>> >> >> I am developing a web system that uses postgres and postgis, my source code >> is released under Apache2 licence (The customers has a copy of the whole >> source reposotory). The server interacts using jdbc and a C function for >> postgres. The client (java) interacts only with my server application. >> >> I think that this is safe, I'm doing wrong? >> My software has to use the GPL? if I can I'd like to use Apache2 licence for >> my source code. > > there is not clean who is customer and what is one unit. If you > distribute PostGIS inside your application as one unit to customer, > then your application should to use GPL. Customer: a research group that uses a server application to store data plus a client application (pure java) that exchanges data with server application (not directly with postgres). I do not distribute postgres nor postgis inside my application. The customer installs postgres, postigis and then install my application (inside tomcat) and create the db. Other people downloads a java application that exchanges data with my application. Is not so easy manage licences (even though I read it) Postgres uses licence similar to BDS PostGIS uses GPL Tomcat uses Apache2 ...and an application usually uses othe libraries. But at the end my software does not use the source code of postgis (but uses postgres include files for a C function). Regard Edoardo
2011/10/24 Edoardo Panfili <edoardo@aspix.it>: > Il 24/10/11 10:03, Pavel Stehule ha scritto: >> >> 2011/10/24 Thomas Kellerer<spam_eater@gmx.net>: >>> >>> Eduardo Morras, 21.10.2011 20:53: >>>>> >>>>> Now PostGIS is licensed under the GPL and I wonder if we can use it >>>>> in a commercial (customer specific) project then. The source code >>>>> will not be made open source, but of course the customer will get >>>>> the source code. >>>>> >>>>> Is it still OK to use the GPL licensed PostGIS in this case? Is >>>>> that then considered a derivative work because the application will >>>>> not work without PostGIS? >>>> >>>> If it's pure GPL, then postgresql is automagically relicenced to GPL, >>>> because postgresql allows relicencing and GPL force it to be GPL. >>>> Your source code must be in GPL too. Remember, it's a virus licence >>>> and has the same problem that Midas king had. >>> >>> Thanks for the answer. >>> >>> I think we'll better be safe than sorry and we will not use PostGIS then. >> >> It doesn't mean, so you must to publish your source code on net. Your >> codes have to be available to your customers. That is all. You can >> distribute your product as service, and then you don't need to show >> your codes. >> > > I am developing a web system that uses postgres and postgis, my source code > is released under Apache2 licence (The customers has a copy of the whole > source reposotory). The server interacts using jdbc and a C function for > postgres. The client (java) interacts only with my server application. > > I think that this is safe, I'm doing wrong? > My software has to use the GPL? if I can I'd like to use Apache2 licence for > my source code. there is not clean who is customer and what is one unit. If you distribute PostGIS inside your application as one unit to customer, then your application should to use GPL. Pavel > > > Regards > Edoardo > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general >
Pavel Stehule wrote on 24.10.2011 12:19: > there is not clean who is customer and what is one unit. If you > distribute PostGIS inside your application as one unit to customer, > then your application should to use GPL. So if we only distribute our application and require the customer to install Postgres and PostGIS, then it shold be fine?
2011/10/24 Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net>: > Pavel Stehule wrote on 24.10.2011 12:19: >> >> there is not clean who is customer and what is one unit. If you >> distribute PostGIS inside your application as one unit to customer, >> then your application should to use GPL. > > So if we only distribute our application and require the customer to install > Postgres and PostGIS, then it shold be fine? I think so it's possible - Linux is GPL, but you can run a non GPL applications. Regards Pavel Stehule > > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general >
On 24 Říjen 2011, 19:44, Thomas Kellerer wrote: > Pavel Stehule wrote on 24.10.2011 12:19: >> there is not clean who is customer and what is one unit. If you >> distribute PostGIS inside your application as one unit to customer, >> then your application should to use GPL. > > So if we only distribute our application and require the customer to > install Postgres and PostGIS, then it shold be fine? I think you should actually read GPL license, because you're obviously confused by how it works - especially note the notion of "derived work". Derived work means that you take a GPL licensed software and modify it. In this case you're required to distribute the source code (again under GPL) to those who received the binary (legally). In case of PostGIS this would mean you modify the PostGIS source code itself, which is very unlikely I guess. Also note that you're not required to provide the sources to whoever asks, only to those who received the binary from you. If someone "steals" the software or receives the software from someone else, you're safe. Anyway if you're going just to use PostGIS (without modifying it), neither of the previous requirements of the concern as your application does not need to be a GPL licensed. Tomas
Tomas Vondra wrote on 24.10.2011 20:11: > On 24 Říjen 2011, 19:44, Thomas Kellerer wrote: >> Pavel Stehule wrote on 24.10.2011 12:19: >>> there is not clean who is customer and what is one unit. If you >>> distribute PostGIS inside your application as one unit to customer, >>> then your application should to use GPL. >> >> So if we only distribute our application and require the customer to >> install Postgres and PostGIS, then it shold be fine? > > I think you should actually read GPL license, because you're obviously > confused by how it works - especially note the notion of "derived work". > > Derived work means that you take a GPL licensed software and modify it. In > this case you're required to distribute the source code (again under GPL) > to those who received the binary (legally). In case of PostGIS this would > mean you modify the PostGIS source code itself, which is very unlikely I > guess. Thanks. My understanding of "derived work" was, that anything that was "compiled" against a GPL licensed piece of software and thuswill *only* run with that software is considered "derived". If derived work only applies to changes of the original software,then this is of course no problem. Regards Thomas
On 22/10/11 02:53, Eduardo Morras wrote: > At 09:26 21/10/2011, Thomas Kellerer wrote: >> Hello, >> >> we are using PostgreSQL in our projects and would like to integrate >> PostGIS as well. >> >> Now PostGIS is licensed under the GPL and I wonder if we can use it in >> a commercial (customer specific) project then. >> The source code will not be made open source, but of course the >> customer will get the source code. >> >> Is it still OK to use the GPL licensed PostGIS in this case? >> Is that then considered a derivative work because the application will >> not work without PostGIS? > > If it's pure GPL, then postgresql is automagically relicenced to GPL, > because postgresql allows relicencing and GPL force it to be GPL. Your > source code must be in GPL too. Remember, it's a virus licence and has > the same problem that Midas king had. I meant to reply to this earlier, but was hoping you meant it as a joke given the Midas reference. Your statement is incorrect. PostgreSQL is not "relicensed" to GPL in any way. GPL requirements are transitive, sure, but they don't *change* the license of linked code, they just require you to distribute it under terms compatible with the GPL which in practice means no more restrictive than the GPL. Note the NUMEROUS CLOSED SOURCE COMMERCIAL TOOLS THAT WORK WITH PostGIS. Were your statement true, they would not be possible. Notably, linking PostGIS to the PostgreSQL server can have no effect on the terms of use or license of libpq, let alone separately distributed adapters like PgODBC, PgJDBC (which doesn't even use libpq!) etc, or on programs using PostgreSQL via those adapters. Again, I strongly recommend that the original poster ask the PostGIS people about this, rather than relying on speculation from people who don't specialise in licensing (myself included) or work on/with a GPL project themselves. The PostGIS folks will get this question a lot, so much so that I'm astounded there doesn't seem to be anything in the FAQ about it. They'll certainly have a good answer if you ask them on their mailing list or via irc://chat.freenode.net/postgis . You can see on the commercial support projects list here (http://www.refractions.net/products/postgis/support/) that there are projects using PostGIS in commercial, closed-source settings. Personally, I think it'd be _very_ helpful if you did publish source code, even if it were under a more restrictive license that (say) prevents its commercial use. I get really frustrated when I have to work with products I don't have source code and debug binaries for. [Yes, Adobe, I'm looking at you and your buggy products.] That said, I see no evidence of any *obligation* to do so and plenty of evidence that theres' no such obligation. The lesson here: for licensing questions, don't ask a mailing list full of people who aren't even part of the project whose license you're interested in. -- Craig Ringer
On -10/01/37 20:59, Thomas Kellerer wrote: >>> Now PostGIS is licensed under the GPL and I wonder if we can use it >>> in a commercial (customer specific) project then. The source code >>> will not be made open source, but of course the customer will get >>> the source code. >>> >>> Is it still OK to use the GPL licensed PostGIS in this case? Is >>> that then considered a derivative work because the application will >>> not work without PostGIS? >> >> If it's pure GPL, then postgresql is automagically relicenced to GPL, >> because postgresql allows relicencing and GPL force it to be GPL. >> Your source code must be in GPL too. Remember, it's a virus licence >> and has the same problem that Midas king had. > > Thanks for the answer. > > I think we'll better be safe than sorry and we will not use PostGIS then. > > Regards > Thomas Hi Thomas, As Robert has suggested, you have misunderstood the GPL license - if you make changes to the *PostGIS* source code AND you distribute the modified code to your customer (rather than offering a managed service), you would need to make the changes available to your *customer* upon request but there is no obligation to make them available to anyone else. But then if your application connects remotely to the PostgreSQL server then your application isn't linking directly to the PostGIS libraries, so then this becomes a non-issue anyway. I guess strictly speaking you could call using stored procedures with PostGIS functions a GPL "violation", but I don't believe anyone associated with the project would have a problem with this. The aim of the GPL license for PostGIS was to ensure that code was contributed back to the project core, not because we want to claim ownership on everyone's GIS application code. If you have any further questions related to licensing, we would be glad to discuss this further on the postgis-users mailing list. Kind regards, Mark. (Member of the PostGIS PSC) -- Mark Cave-Ayland - Senior Technical Architect PostgreSQL - PostGIS Sirius Corporation plc - control through freedom http://www.siriusit.co.uk t: +44 870 608 0063 Sirius Labs: http://www.siriusit.co.uk/labs
On 10/25/11 3:51 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > As Robert has suggested, you have misunderstood the GPL license - if > you make changes to the *PostGIS* source code AND you distribute the > modified code to your customer (rather than offering a managed > service), you would need to make the changes available to your > *customer* upon request but there is no obligation to make them > available to anyone else. But then if your application connects > remotely to the PostgreSQL server then your application isn't linking > directly to the PostGIS libraries, so then this becomes a non-issue > anyway. > > I guess strictly speaking you could call using stored procedures with > PostGIS functions a GPL "violation", but I don't believe anyone > associated with the project would have a problem with this. The aim of > the GPL license for PostGIS was to ensure that code was contributed > back to the project core, not because we want to claim ownership on > everyone's GIS application code. > > If you have any further questions related to licensing, we would be > glad to discuss this further on the postgis-users mailing list. as I read the GPL, if he's distributing his software bundled on a turnkey computer with linux(GPL) and PostGIS(GPL) then the GPL license wants to encompass the whole package, and he has to make FULL source code available to his customers, who can freely redistribute said source any way they want. the reality is, this is rather unenforcable. if he's distributing his application software separately, and the user has to install linux and postgis etc and integrate his application, then this doesn't apply at all. -- john r pierce N 37, W 122 santa cruz ca mid-left coast
Mark Cave-Ayland, 25.10.2011 12:51: > As Robert has suggested, you have misunderstood the GPL license - if > you make changes to the *PostGIS* source code AND you distribute the > modified code to your customer (rather than offering a managed > service), you would need to make the changes available to your > *customer* upon request but there is no obligation to make them > available to anyone else. But then if your application connects > remotely to the PostgreSQL server then your application isn't linking > directly to the PostGIS libraries, so then this becomes a non-issue > anyway. > > I guess strictly speaking you could call using stored procedures with > PostGIS functions a GPL "violation", but I don't believe anyone > associated with the project would have a problem with this. The aim > of the GPL license for PostGIS was to ensure that code was > contributed back to the project core, not because we want to claim > ownership on everyone's GIS application code. > > If you have any further questions related to licensing, we would be > glad to discuss this further on the postgis-users mailing list. Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. I always have a hard time to understand the GPL especially the dividing line between "using", "linkin" and creating a derivedwork. Kind regards Thomas
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 01:41:17PM +0200, Thomas Kellerer wrote: > Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. > > I always have a hard time to understand the GPL especially the > dividing line between "using", "linkin" and creating a derived work. That because the GPL does not get to define those terms. They are defined by copyright law, the licence does not get to choose what is a derived work and what isn't. The FSF is of the opinion that anything linked to a GPL library is a derived work, but that isn't true in all cases (libedit vs libreadline is one of those borderline cases). I note in the OPs case they are relying on the customer to install PostGIS. The GPL only applies to *redistribution* not usage. So if you're not supplying your customers with PostGIS then the fact that it's GPL seems completely irrelevent. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > He who writes carelessly confesses thereby at the very outset that he does > not attach much importance to his own thoughts. -- Arthur Schopenhauer
Attachment
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> wrote: > I note in the OPs case they are relying on the customer to install > PostGIS. The GPL only applies to *redistribution* not usage. So if > you're not supplying your customers with PostGIS then the fact that > it's GPL seems completely irrelevent. > Also as a note here, if linking implied derivation, then all software that ran on Windows would be illegal to distribute without Microsoft's permission...... Yet at least here in the US, jailbreaking an iPhone is legal in the opinion of the Copyright Office because it allows fair use of the device, namely installing apps that Apple hasn't otherwise authorized. So I'd generally agree with the assessment above. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
On 10/27/2011 04:24 PM, Chris Travers wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout > <kleptog@svana.org> wrote: > >> I note in the OPs case they are relying on the customer to install >> PostGIS. The GPL only applies to *redistribution* not usage. So if >> you're not supplying your customers with PostGIS then the fact that >> it's GPL seems completely irrelevent. >> > Also as a note here, if linking implied derivation, then all software > that ran on Windows would be illegal to distribute without Microsoft's > permission...... Yet at least here in the US, jailbreaking an iPhone > is legal in the opinion of the Copyright Office because it allows fair > use of the device, namely installing apps that Apple hasn't otherwise > authorized. So I'd generally agree with the assessment above. Not to be a killjoy but unless any of us is an attorney, I suggest we defer to a person with a law degree. This seems more like a question for the SFLC than for the general community. JD > > Best Wishes, > Chris Travers > -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development The PostgreSQL Conference - http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ @cmdpromptinc - @postgresconf - 509-416-6579