Agree that having the Foundation be the administrator makes sense.
I assume the process would be something like this.
0. Legal counsel is retained.
1. Business terms of licensing the marks is decided. This would cover the approval process, requirements and fees, if
any.
2. Contract language for sublicensing the trademark to interested parties is drawn up. Something sort of like
http://www.linuxmark.org/linux_license_doc.html
3. Trademarks are transferred to the Foundation, or a contract is executed giving the Foundation the right to grant
perpetualsublicenses. This isn't that hard.
4. The program is rolled out. This presumably includes an online form like this
http://www.linuxmark.org/license.html.
5. People like Pervasive sign up to be licensed users of the mark.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 3:03 PM
To: Lance Obermeyer
Cc: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org; Robert Bernier
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Linux trademark and PostgreSQL
> Whether the licensor (e.g. the owner of the mark) is a private individual or the "PostgreSQL Foundation" is not
relevantfrom the perspective of the licensee. That is a separate question.
>
> Pervasive is interested in becoming a formal licensee of the mark. Just to be clear, we have no desire to be the
exclusivelicensee.
> We believe that the bar to becoming a licensee of the mark should be low, just as the bar to using the software is.
Wewould
>contribute to the creation of a licensing contract, up to assisting in the creation of a PostgreSQL Mark Institute as
thelicensing vehicle if that is what makes the most sense.
I believe using the PostgreSQL Foundation for this is the most appropriate.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake