Thread: Licence preamble update

On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 04:56:05PM +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> Per some brief discussion on the core list, the attached patch updates the
> licence preamble to more accurately reflect the use of Postgres vs.
> PostgreSQL (see https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/project-name/ for
> background from many years ago).

> --- a/COPYRIGHT
> +++ b/COPYRIGHT
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>  PostgreSQL Database Management System
> -(formerly known as Postgres, then as Postgres95)
> +(also known as Postgres, formerly as Postgres95)
>  
>  Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2025, PostgreSQL Global Development Group

I'm not seeing this change as aligned with
https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/project-name/, which says Postgres
"is an alias or nickname and is not the official name of the project."  The
official product name did change Postgres -> Postgres95 -> PostgreSQL, with
"Postgres" holding the status of a nickname since Postgres95 became the
official name.  Today's text matches that history, and the proposed text
doesn't.  Can you share more from the brief discussion?  Changing a license
file is an eyebrow-raising event, so we should do it only if the win is clear.
There may be an argument for making this change, but I'm missing it currently.

Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 04:56:05PM +0000, Dave Page wrote:
>> --- a/COPYRIGHT
>> +++ b/COPYRIGHT
>> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>> PostgreSQL Database Management System
>> -(formerly known as Postgres, then as Postgres95)
>> +(also known as Postgres, formerly as Postgres95)
>>
>> Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2025, PostgreSQL Global Development Group

> I'm not seeing this change as aligned with
> https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/project-name/, which says Postgres
> "is an alias or nickname and is not the official name of the project."  The
> official product name did change Postgres -> Postgres95 -> PostgreSQL, with
> "Postgres" holding the status of a nickname since Postgres95 became the
> official name.  Today's text matches that history, and the proposed text
> doesn't.  Can you share more from the brief discussion?  Changing a license
> file is an eyebrow-raising event, so we should do it only if the win is clear.
> There may be an argument for making this change, but I'm missing it currently.

PGCAC holds trademarks on both "PostgreSQL" and "Postgres".  We've
been given legal advice that both terms need to be in current use
to preserve the trademarks.  Which they are and have been, but the
present wording in COPYRIGHT doesn't align with that.  The website
phrasing will be adjusted as well.

            regards, tom lane