|
|
 | | From: | Lance Obermeyer | | Subject: | Re: Pervasive PostgreSQL Announcement | | Date: | Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:39:49 -0600 |
|
|
 | Since this seems to have stuck a nerve, let me try and explain a bit more behind the naming decision.
Many posters seem to prefer if I would have named my product "Pervasive PostgreSQL." To be honest, I agree. That was preferable. However, the inescapable fact is that "PostgreSQL" is a registered trademark owned by somebody else. Unless I hold a signed license from the trademark holder, I would be knowingly infringing upon somebody else's property right. That opens me to legal liability of unknowable scale. There are public posts in the advocacy group essentially pledging to not try and enforce the trademark against groups like Pervasive. Those posts are legally unpersuasive. There are others using the trademark presumably without license. That does not preclude the trademark holder sending me (or them) a cease and desist letter, it only makes it easier for me to defend myself.
The bottom line is that there is a risk, albeit small, that my company, as well as other companies using the word, could get dragged into court to explain why it knowingly infringed on a registered trademark. That risk is significantly less with the word "Postgres" since it is not a registered trademark. Contrary to popular opinion, companies desperately want to avoid going to court, and we always take the less risky path. So, had there been a mechanism in place to solve this above similar to what Linus has done with the Linux Mark Institute, we wouldn't be here.
While I sense there is a desire to paint my intentions as "evil", I can only ask you to believe that it isn't the case. My decisions have been an honest response to navigating waters where opinion (the name "PostgreSQL" is community property) is distinctly different from fact (the word "PostgreSQL" is a registered trademark). My suggestion, whether you accept it or not, is to formally resolve this before the next guy that is trying to be on the right side of the community and the law shows up.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
|
|
| | From: | Andrew Sullivan | | Subject: | Re: Pervasive PostgreSQL Announcement | | Date: | Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:17:28 -0500 |
|
|
| On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:39:49AM -0600, Lance Obermeyer wrote:
> legal liability of unknowable scale. There are public posts in the
> advocacy group essentially pledging to not try and enforce the
> trademark against groups like Pervasive. Those posts are legally
> unpersuasive. There are others using the trademark presumably
Not to mention legally dangerous -- just aske the makers of Aspirin.
I mean "Bayer Aspirin"; they lost their trademark because of
non-enforcement.
> trademark). My suggestion, whether you accept it or not, is to
> formally resolve this before the next guy that is trying to be on
> the right side of the community and the law shows up.
I think this is an excellent suggestion. (And by the way, your
public interest in PostgreSQL is welcomed, at least by me.)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what
you told them to. That actually seems sort of quaint now.
--J.D. Baldwin
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
|
|
| | From: | Joshua D. Drake | | Subject: | Re: Pervasive PostgreSQL Announcement | | Date: | Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:32:45 -0800 |
|
|
| This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040401060707060609020702
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>trademark). My suggestion, whether you accept it or not, is to
>>formally resolve this before the next guy that is trying to be on
>>the right side of the community and the law shows up.
>
>
> I think this is an excellent suggestion. (And by the way, your
> public interest in PostgreSQL is welcomed, at least by me.)
Just FYI, I would be surprised if at this point the trademark was
enforceable on any level. IANAL but the trademark hasn't been enforced
once as far as I know since it was created...
But I would agree that there definately needs to be some level of
statement for the use of the trademark.
SIncerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> A
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc., your source for PostgreSQL replication,
professional support, programming, managed services, shared
and dedicated hosting. Home of the Open Source Projects plPHP,
plPerlNG, pgManage, and pgPHPtoolkit.
Contact us now at: +1-503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com
--------------040401060707060609020702
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8;
name="jd.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="jd.vcf"
begin:vcard
fn:Joshua D. Drake
n:Drake;Joshua D.
org:Command Prompt, Inc.
adr:;;PO Box 215;Cascade Locks;Oregon;97014;USA
email;internet:jd@commandprompt.com
title:Consultant
tel;work:503-667-4564
tel;fax:503-210-0334
note:Command Prompt, Inc. is the largest and oldest US based commercial PostgreSQL support provider. We provide the only commercially viable integrated PostgreSQL replication solution, but also custom programming, and support. We authored the book Practical PostgreSQL, the procedural language plPHP, and adding trigger capability to plPerl.
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.commandprompt.com/
version:2.1
end:vcard
--------------040401060707060609020702
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
--------------040401060707060609020702--
|
|
| | From: | Richard Huxton | | Subject: | Re: Pervasive PostgreSQL Announcement | | Date: | Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:34:15 +0000 |
|
|
| Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>>> trademark). My suggestion, whether you accept it or not, is to
>>> formally resolve this before the next guy that is trying to be on
>>> the right side of the community and the law shows up.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think this is an excellent suggestion. (And by the way, your
>> public interest in PostgreSQL is welcomed, at least by me.)
>
>
> Just FYI, I would be surprised if at this point the trademark was
> enforceable on any level. IANAL but the trademark hasn't been enforced
> once as far as I know since it was created...
I'm assuming the TM is only in the USA anyway. Registering an
EU-wide/international trademark seems quite involved.
http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/
http://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/index.html
> But I would agree that there definately needs to be some level of
> statement for the use of the trademark.
Having an "official" statement or body to approach would at least let
those who want to play reasonably know that they're doing the right thing.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
|
|
| | From: | Bruce Momjian | | Subject: | Re: Pervasive PostgreSQL Announcement | | Date: | Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:03:34 -0500 (EST) |
|
|
|
I totally understand your position and you have clearly thought out the
implications. I do think it is a shame you didn't use PostgreSQL if
that is what you preferred.
In fact we registered PostgreSQL only to prevent someone else from
registering it and blocking the community from using it. We want others
to use it for their products so if our registering it prevented you from
using it, that is a shame and is not what we intended, in fact the
opposite. We registered it so you would be safe to use it.
Can someone explain how this is to be handled? I don't think the
trademark laws really encourage someone to trademark something so others
can use it and we should figure out a plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Obermeyer wrote:
> Since this seems to have stuck a nerve, let me try and explain a bit
> more behind the naming decision.
>
> Many posters seem to prefer if I would have named my product "Pervasive
> PostgreSQL." To be honest, I agree. That was preferable. However,
> the inescapable fact is that "PostgreSQL" is a registered trademark
> owned by somebody else. Unless I hold a signed license from the
> trademark holder, I would be knowingly infringing upon somebody else's
> property right. That opens me to legal liability of unknowable scale.
> There are public posts in the advocacy group essentially pledging to
> not try and enforce the trademark against groups like Pervasive. Those
> posts are legally unpersuasive. There are others using the trademark
> presumably without license. That does not preclude the trademark holder
> sending me (or them) a cease and desist letter, it only makes it easier
> for me to defend myself.
>
> The bottom line is that there is a risk, albeit small, that my company,
> as well as other companies using the word, could get dragged into court
> to explain why it knowingly infringed on a registered trademark. That
> risk is significantly less with the word "Postgres" since it is not a
> registered trademark. Contrary to popular opinion, companies
> desperately want to avoid going to court, and we always take the less
> risky path. So, had there been a mechanism in place to solve this
> above similar to what Linus has done with the Linux Mark Institute, we
> wouldn't be here.
>
> While I sense there is a desire to paint my intentions as "evil", I
> can only ask you to believe that it isn't the case. My decisions have
> been an honest response to navigating waters where opinion (the name
> "PostgreSQL" is community property) is distinctly different from fact
> (the word "PostgreSQL" is a registered trademark). My suggestion,
> whether you accept it or not, is to formally resolve this before the
> next guy that is trying to be on the right side of the community and
> the law shows up.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
--
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
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
|
|
| | From: | Timothy D. Witham | | Subject: | Re: Pervasive PostgreSQL Announcement | | Date: | Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:31:04 -0800 |
|
|
| On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 10:14 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> > In fact we registered PostgreSQL only to prevent someone else from
> > registering it and blocking the community from using it. We want others
> > to use it for their products so if our registering it prevented you from
> > using it, that is a shame and is not what we intended, in fact the
> > opposite. We registered it so you would be safe to use it.
> >
> > Can someone explain how this is to be handled? I don't think the
> > trademark laws really encourage someone to trademark something so others
> > can use it and we should figure out a plan.
>
> Well, one obvious possibility is, once we get the Foundation approved by the
> IRS, to transfer ownership of the trademark to the Foundation. Then the
> Foundation can offer the trademark under a public license that explicitly
> gives permission to anyone to use it who is "using it properly", that is for
> a distribution of the PostgreSQL code.
Well you need to talk to a lawyer but Linux handles it this way.
Now saying that it has been a little lax in the last few years but
it is getting tighter.
http://www.linuxmark.org/
There is a legal expense in maintaining the trademark and there
is value in the trademark to people who want to associate with
the group. (Like Pervasive) So a small fee for using the
trademark usually isn't an issue as it is the normal quid pro
quo method of business and the lawyers feel better about
it. :-)
Tim
>
--
Timothy D. Witham - Chief Technology Officer - wookie@osdl.org
Open Source Development Lab Inc - A non-profit corporation
12725 SW Millikan Way - Suite 400 - Beaverton OR, 97005
(503)-906-1911 (office) (503)-702-2871 (cell)
(503)-626-2436 (fax)
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
|
|
| | From: | Josh Berkus | | Subject: | Re: Pervasive PostgreSQL Announcement | | Date: | Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:14:14 -0800 |
|
|
| Bruce,
> In fact we registered PostgreSQL only to prevent someone else from
> registering it and blocking the community from using it. We want others
> to use it for their products so if our registering it prevented you from
> using it, that is a shame and is not what we intended, in fact the
> opposite. We registered it so you would be safe to use it.
>
> Can someone explain how this is to be handled? I don't think the
> trademark laws really encourage someone to trademark something so others
> can use it and we should figure out a plan.
Well, one obvious possibility is, once we get the Foundation approved by the
IRS, to transfer ownership of the trademark to the Foundation. Then the
Foundation can offer the trademark under a public license that explicitly
gives permission to anyone to use it who is "using it properly", that is for
a distribution of the PostgreSQL code.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
|
|
|
