121–127 of 127 posts
> In the spirit of the open source movement, the PostgreSQL community has always tried to operate transparently and fairly
Idunno, from reading both sides of this it doesn't much feel that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I mean the "rules" that would enable a NPO to be able to hold IP for the project. There are no rules for that, yet PostgreSQL Europe holds trademarks and domain names for the PostgreSQL project. And nobody has asked them, neither sued them, for this. Indeed, PostgreSQL Europe joined together with Canada to sue Fundación. But PostgreSQL Europe is no different from Fundación: just a Postgres NPO.
But they are different: PGEU is directly affiliated and acknowledged by the PostgreSQL community, whereas Fundación is not. This can be seen by the absence of Fundación on the donations page (where PGEU is listed), the lack of mailing list for Fundación (general-eu is maintained by or allocated for PGEU), and it is missing from IRC/external webpages/Local User Groups pages (#postgresql-eu is under management of PGEU)…
> PGEU is directly affiliated and acknowledged by the PostgreSQL community, whereas Fundación is not.
But that just begs the question[§], doesn't it: So how does one become "affiliated and acknowledged"; why is it that PGEU is and Fundación is not? (AFAICS ATM: Cronyism, pure and simple.)
___
[§]: Unless it doesn't; I can never remember how that weird expression works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose that's viable, as a process. Maybe even the best we can do. What I'm surprised about is that they call it a "registry" when it operates more like a mailing-list, where you should watch for publications and reply when you have objections. A "registered trademark" is more a "trademark advertised on the mailing-list with no objection at the time". Which is not silly, but somewhat inappropriately named.
> inappropriately named How else should it be named? A "register" or "registry" basically means nothing more than a big book where stuff is written down -- registered. Then later, you can go to the King's scribe, he'll look in his big ledger, and testify that yes, you came before him and had him register your Marque Of Tradhe back in October 1496, and if the other guy can't point to an older entry in his name, you wi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> inappropriately named How else should it be named? A "register" or "registry" basically means nothing more than a big book where stuff is written down -- registered. Then later, you can go to the King's scribe, he'll look in his big ledger, and testify that yes, you came before him and had him register your Marque Of Tradhe back in October 1496, and if the other guy can't point to an older entry in his name, you wi…
But no one is looking at the register, you are supposed to remind everyone what you put in there every time it's relevant. This is a very unusual way to use a register...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they are different: PGEU is directly affiliated and acknowledged by the PostgreSQL community, whereas Fundación is not. This can be seen by the absence of Fundación on the donations page (where PGEU is listed), the lack of mailing list for Fundación (general-eu is maintained by or allocated for PGEU), and it is missing from IRC/external webpages/Local User Groups pages (#postgresql-eu is under management of PGEU)…
> But they are different: > PGEU is directly affiliated and acknowledged by the PostgreSQL community, whereas Fundación is not. But that just begs the question[§], doesn't it: So how does one become "affiliated and acknowledged"; why is it that PGEU is and Fundación is not? (AFAICS ATM: Cronyism, pure and simple.) ___ [§]: Unless it doesn't; I can never remember how that weird expression works.
(The page in question then also goes on to say "The PostgreSQL Core Team may recognise, not recognise, or rescind a previous recognition of any organisation without justification, regardless of whether or not the criteria above are met.", but that's irrelevant here because the baseline requirements are not even met)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But no one is looking at the register, you are supposed to remind everyone what you put in there every time it's relevant. This is a very unusual way to use a register...
Land is also registered, and if someone starts building on yours you tell them "Hey stop, that's my ground you're building on!". What's the difference here? The registry is there as backup proof you can point to when reminding people; isn't that how they work in all these situations? Seems the perfectly normal default way to me.
This is exactly my point, it is completely different from how the trademark registry works, were people are not expected to know. They can make their claim, and if no challenge happens, they will make it to the registry. They can do this without prejudice and rectifying the situation falls on the previous owner who has to spend significant money to make a case (one they can lose).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But they are different: > PGEU is directly affiliated and acknowledged by the PostgreSQL community, whereas Fundación is not. But that just begs the question[§], doesn't it: So how does one become "affiliated and acknowledged"; why is it that PGEU is and Fundación is not? (AFAICS ATM: Cronyism, pure and simple.) ___ [§]: Unless it doesn't; I can never remember how that weird expression works.
That page directly answers your question? It says "To become recognised as an NPO, the organisation must self-certify that they meet the criteria below, aimed at ensuring they meet the standards of openness expected in the PostgreSQL Community". The Fundación refuses to meet the standards outlined in this document, for example the standard that "The board of directors MUST be elected by the membership, and all member…
And either way, it still doesn't answer ahachete's question:
>>> So if Core (read: PAC) is the only one who should hold the trademarks, why is not Core/PAC also suing and publicly bashing against PEU? What makes PEU special? What makes legally PEU different from other Postgres NPOs?
Sure, so PGEU is apparently "acknowledged as affiliated". But where does it say that this confers rights to use the trademark, and anything else doesn't? Is this "affiliation acknowledgment" a concept in trademark law; and if so, is that Spanish, EU, US, or international trademark law? (I very much doubt it features in any of them.)
>>> I've been asking this question for years, including many times during this "debate" with Core/PEU/PAC about the trademarks. No answer.
It's great that you pointed me (albeit indirectly) to that page of criteria, but maybe the people ahachete asked could have done the same for him.
> The page in question then also goes on to say "The PostgreSQL Core Team may recognise, not recognise, or rescind a previous recognition of any organisation without justification, regardless of whether or not the criteria above are met.", but that's irrelevant
Oh, I don't know that it is all that irrelevant, at least in a larger context. Quite apart from ahachete's tribulations: Are all contributors aware that they've donated their efforts to be so capriciously allowed -- or not, as the case may be -- to be traded upon by others, and apparently without recourse to any due process?