On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 11:05, Bruce Momjian wrote: > john.bender@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Guys, > > > > In our effort to distribute PostgreSQL to our customers, our higher > > ups would like to reduce the visibility that it is indeed > > PostgreSQL for a number of reasons at a few of our customer sites > > (particularly because these particular customers are very wary of > > open source). > > > > I know the license allows rebranding, but is there a document > > anywhere that specifies just what you have to do to do it? Is it as > > simple as regexing strings in the source, compiling, and renaming > > the exectuables? Or is it fraught with twisty little passages? > > Wow, we never got that question before. There is no legal requirement > that people know they are running PostgreSQL, and some products do not > use PostgreSQL in their name, so on that front you are fine. > > However, keep in mind that the changes you are suggesting will have a > cost associated with them, in doing the changes, and finding all the > place where the changes are required. PostgreSQL is pretty complex and > even changing error messages can make things like internationalization > or tests for specific messages in interface libraries fail. > > Basically, there isn't anything magic to the process except > understanding all the applicable code well enough to know your changes > are safe and thorough. > > Ultimately, you might end up reinforcing your users' bias, not because > open source is unreliable, but because your version is. If they don't really want to get into the "we produce our flavor of PostgreSQL called XYZ" business, maybe they should resell some flavor from someone else then? Seems to me education of the people who are wary of open source is the answer here, but some people are harder to teach than others. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
