7 ms·
Álvaro Hernández here apparently runs a PostgreSQL consulting firm [1] and controls "Fundación PostgreSQL." Would Fundación PostgreSQL have the power to grant e
by throwthere 5y ago
Álvaro Hernández here apparently runs a PostgreSQL consulting firm [1] and controls "Fundación PostgreSQL." Would Fundación PostgreSQL have the power to grant exclusive use of the trademark to the consulting firm?
[1] https://ongres.com/about-us/#team https://ongres.com/about-us/#team
- clra 5y agoJust to play devil's advocate — OOC, what do you think the end game for Álvaro would be under this scenario? Under the most cynical interpretation, I guess he'd convert Ongres from a Postgres consultancy to a trademark troll and sue other companies who try to use "Postgres"? Maybe, but that's a pretty serious professional change, and seems a little unlikely, especially given that's a considerable chance that he loses the trademark again if it does end up in court. For my money, the most likely explanation is that it was a land grab move for prestige purposes that went too far. (And one which may backfire as Google ties this press release to his name.)
- BizarroLand 5y agoTrademark trolling is specifically the use case for this. Sue every sub $300k/yr company than mentions that they use PostgreSQL in their stack. They won't have the funds to defend themselves, he makes off with $10k-$30k in settlements and goes on to the next one until a court stops him.
- shkkmo 5y agoI get the impression that Álvaro has issues with the governance of the core team and PGCAC and thus wanted trademarks to protect his consultancy that were under the control of his non-profit which he believes has stricter governance. He also seems to be interested in leveraging the trademarks to force governance changes on the core team and PGCAC.
- clra 5y agoYeah. My comments are from before Alvaro started commenting in this thread, and I've since changed my position based on reading his responses. > He also seems to be interested in leveraging the trademarks to force governance changes on the core team and PGCAC. This is it. The strategy was to acquire the trademarks and then use them as leverage to force the dissolution of Postgres Core and its associated organizations, to be replaced with a new power structure which includes him as a key member. The very last part is me editorializing somewhat (although it's not very much of a stretch), but he's been quite explicit about the rest of it.
- ahachete 5y agoFundación PostgreSQL is a 100% independent non-profit organization not tied to any company or any other institution. Its governing board cannot have more than 40% members of the same company. Please go to https://postgresql.fund/ https://postgresql.fund/ and read the Statutes. Actually, a "Fundación" in Spain is an entity specially scrutinized by the Ministry of Justice, and could never to anything like this. It is meant to be for the public good. Besides, this very same question could have been applied to the Core Team members that are employees of EDB and/or Crunchy, two entities that control the majority of Core. And Core is not even a non-profit, it's nothing (there's no legal entity behind). Or the PostgreSQL Association of Canada, which is an association which could definitely grant exclusive trademark use to a given entity, as it is not scrutinized by a country's Ministry, as a Fundación in Spain is.
- tomnipotent 5y agoPlease don't pretend you're not doing this in bad faith. Trying to make the existing Postgres team look like the bad guys is embarrassing. You're doing this for your own profit, that much is clear.
- rhaas 5y agoThe only name I can find on the "Fundación PostgreSQL" web site is yours. The PostgreSQL core team membership is listed on postgresql.org and includes 7 members from 4 different companies. I agree that perhaps the PostgreSQL core team could and should have more diversity than it does, and not just in terms of who employs them ... but an organization with only one publicly-disclosed member is not somehow better.