[ahachete]

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.

[mattashii]

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). As such, you should not call Fundación a "Postgres NPO", as it is unaffiliated with the main PostgreSQL project.

Furthermore, Fundación does not seem to have a fair and transparent method for the community to get involved; instead of association members voting for the board (Patronage) the board seemingly appoints their own members (Art. 10(2) of Statutes). Lastly, Fundación has no well-defined trademark policy (only fair use, so I would be unable to start my local PostgreSQL Community (Netherlands) without infringing on the trademark).

PGEU however is transparent in who can become a member (~anyone in Europe), how the board is elected (popular vote by all members of proposed member candidates) and clearly describes in what conditions these brands may be used other than the normal fair use policy.

[CRConrad]

> 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.

[nightpool]

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 members including any corporate members MUST have an equal vote."

(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)

[CRConrad]

What "that" page? Aha, the page linked from the five comments up-thread... If it's as well hidden on the site -- which I'd say it is, linked as it is from a page with the semi-unrelated title ans subject of "Donate", and lacking an entry of its own in the tree on the left -- as in the comments here, then no wonder ahachete maybe just couldn't find it.

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?