Re: Rebranding PostgreSQL

john(dot)bender(at)hushmail(dot)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