| > Once the problem escalates to be a legal dispute, this is the only way communication can happen. But there hasn't been any other previous communication. Our first notice from them, as detailed in the post, was from their lawyers. So there has been no attempt on their side to come to even an amicable conversation. I offered that --but was denied. > And honestly, even the domain name postgr.es is confusing. That domain is held by PostreSQL Europe. So according to your argument, they shouldn't hold it. > From the PostgreSQL EU website (as linked by you), these are their specific trademarks: That they are more or less confusing is something I may agree with. But I don't see why it may change the subject matter: if the agreement would be that only a single entity would hold them, so be it. PEU can't definitely do that, under no circumstance. "Funnily" enough, PEU is also one of the entities suing Fundación in the courts. Indeed, on the very first letter, as our post mentions, they are presented with PAC as if they were part of the same: "in representation of both the PostgreSQL Community Association of Canada and PostgreSQL Europe ("individually and collectively")". So your argument that PEU's are not confusing is not what is at stakes here. It is that two entities, unrelated and separated, want to be the steward of the trademarks in Postgres. And if a third one tries to help, covering some observed gaps, it is sued by both. That is potentially collusion. > And I'm sorry, but the global stability of the Postgres project is far more important than whatever good intentions you had. I agree. But then why https://www.postgresql.org/about/news/trademark-actions-agai... is posted publicly? If the matter is in the courts (as it is), why is it needed to bring it publicly? We're happy to defend ourselves in private and in the public if needed, but I don't see what they win by this, and I see how it goes against the whole Community. I'm sure you have read in our post that "The PostgreSQL Association of Canada; Postgres Europe; and Fundación PostgreSQL will transfer, permanently and irrevocably, all domain names, trademarks and other IP assets to the new NPO. New, clear and non discretionary rules will be established to allow fair use of the PostgreSQL trademarks by any stakeholder.". So it's not that we're unwilling to transfer the trademarks to the "Community". It's just that we disagree what the governing bodies of that community should be, believing that the current ones are a great liability and need urgent reform. Of course, they don't want reform, so they chose to bash us publicly when the matter is in the courts. Who's harming the Community then? Are the trademarks currently registered by Fundación not offered to the public, with indeed less restrictions than PAC and PEU's? (https://postgresql.fund/trademarks). |
The first two organizations are almost the same thing as the core team, for all practical purposes (unless you're a lawyer, say). There is very significant overlap in membership. A cosy arrangement, certainly. I imagine that this structure was based on certain practical considerations. Legal advice about IP and whatnot.
I have been working on Postgres (primarily as a Postgres backend hacker) for over a decade now. The people from the first two groups are friends and colleagues. There are problems, but on the whole these people have a significant amount of moral authority for good reasons. They have at least gotten us this far.
The idea that one of the first two organizations from your list are at risk of going rogue is beyond ludicrous. There are certainly legitimate criticisms that one could make about the project's governance, but this isn't one of them.
> It's just that we disagree what the governing bodies of that community should be, believing that the current ones are a great liability and need urgent reform.
This is not reform. This is a clumsily executed power grab.