Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 9.0
- From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
- To: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 9.0
- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:59:15 -0800
- Message-id: <200702141459.16448.josh@agliodbs.com> <text/plain>
Bruce, > Having contributors bought out was always one of our three risks, the > other two being patent and trademark attacks. Not sure what we can > really do about them. Actually, the potential for trademark attacks is minimal to nonexistant according to the attorney's report. So I'm not worrying about it. Patent attacks are no more a risk for us than they are for every other OSS project, and the answer for these is to support the anti-patent organizations. Overall, I think we're in a good position in that there are a lot of attacks which could *hurt* PostgreSQL, but none which are a guarenteed kill, and the public knowledge of an attack could easily cause our users and enemies of the attacker, and the OSS legal community, to rally to our defense and support. This makes any attack a risky proposition for the attacker. Our #1 best defense is to make sure that as many companies as possible have invested in making PostgreSQL an integral part of their infrastructure and/or product line. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
- Prev by Date: Re: The Italian PostgreSQL User Group has released the PgDay official web site
- Next by Date: PostgreSQL Marketing material
- Previous by thread: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 9.0
- Next by thread: PostgreSQL at CeBit?
- Indexes: