Re: 9.5 Release press coverage

On 13 January 2016 at 13:28, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> > The wording itself wasn't very good, with the way the "announced" verb
> was
> > used. We certainly can't prevent them from doing that, but we should
> forward
> > that feedback and ask that they be more careful about that wording the
> next
> > time.
>
> I'd really like to understand what wording would be found acceptable
> to the community. I think it's natural for a press release put out by
> a company to begin with the name of that company. The press release
> says in the first sentence that the release was made by the PostgreSQL
> community.

The first sentence says that EDB is announcing the PostgreSQL 9.5 release,
which it has no right to do.

Presumably if 2ndQuadrant makes press announcements about the next version
of PPAS, offering people to contact 2ndQuadrant for more information, I
would expect to receive a strongly worded letter. The objection probably
wouldn't focus on which verbs were acceptable, it would be an objection
based upon improper use of a trademark, which is exactly what is happening
here.

> To be honest, I'd be sort of surprised if 2ndQuadrant ever put out ANY
> public statement that made as much mention an EnterpriseDB-developed
> feature as that press release made of BRIN.

When someone develops something worthy of mention, 2ndQuadrant mentions it
in any publicity. You've heard me do this.

> In that sense, I thought
> that press release was remarkably fair. If somebody had asked me
> about that press release before it had been put out, I would have
> recommended against sending it to pgsql-announce, but I would have had
> no concerns about using it anywhere else. I still don't really
> understand what the problem is. Can you be more specific?
>
> If the community's position is that the only acceptable thing for
> EnterpriseDB to promote is the community press release that doesn't
> mention EnterpriseDB or any EnterpriseDB staff or any
> EnterpriseDB-contributed feature, and that it must promote that only
> without using the word EnterpriseDB, I think that's, well, I guess I
> think that's ridiculous. It's reasonable to expect that EnterpriseDB
> won't say that we are the one company behind PostgreSQL, and the ONE
> article that said that has now been quite thoroughly corrected. It's
> not reasonable to say that EnterpriseDB won't talk about EnterpriseDB.
> I fully expect other people to talk about their own companies.
>
> Generally, I'd say that EnterpriseDB generates a regular stream of
> press releases, and the community doesn't get veto power over those.
> The community, of course, has every right to decide which of those
> announcements it will promote using its own channels (pgsql-announce,
> for example). But it has no right to control EDB's access to the
> media.

Yes, the PostgreSQL Community does have a right to control EDB's, Oracle's
or anybody's access to the media when a trademark it controls is misused. I
am not in control of that trademark, so it is not for me to say.

> If EnterpriseDB is making false statements, then it is
> entirely right for people to be upset about that, but our press
> release does not do that. I have read that press release several
> times from top to bottom and I do not see a single statement in there
> that is false or claims credit for anybody else's work. Period.
>

Everything is implied, but overall it is very clearly misleading people to
think that the PostgreSQL brand is controlled by EDB.

I oppose that viewpoint, from any company that tries to suggest it.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services