| From: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Promoting PostgreSQL to the world. |
| Date: | 2004-04-29 19:44:14 |
| Message-ID: | 1083267853.30065.371.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-www |
> Command Prompt doesn't doesn't have any staff contributing to the public
> project. Do we tell them they can't use the name "PostgreSQL"? That is
> just an example. There are tons of PostgreSQL usages out there that
> have no payback to the community. ConnX and dbexperts are good
> examples.
If their next release should have several security issues pass through
bugtrack, it would be easy to confuse the two products and think that
PostgreSQL proper has the problems.
So yes, I would argue that Command Prompt should not be distributing a
modified PostgreSQL under the PostgreSQL brand name. Calling it Mammoth
Database and mentioning that it is based, in part, on PostgreSQL would
be more appropriate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-04-29 19:45:03 | Re: First two requests for PUGs |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2004-04-29 19:40:37 | Re: Promoting PostgreSQL to the world. |