> > 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.
The problem with not doing it through a lawyer is that you might inadvertently say something that could disadvantage you later on if things go to court. The value a lawyer offers here is that they're familiar with all the ins and outs of the relevant laws, and which words may or may not carry meaning if it goes to court.
In many ways it's a lose-lose situation: going through a lawyer can come off as cold, distant, and even threatening, but not doing so risks screwing yourself over. Since they don't really know you or your motivations, going through a lawyer is clearly the best option. Especially when dealing with a bad-faith actor who might do their best to twist words it can really cover yourself. You might say "of course I would never do that!" and I fully believe you're honest in that, but PostgreSQL people have no way of knowing that, not for sure anyway.
So my advice would be to not take that it went through a lawyer as "un-amicable conversation"; it's just how these things work. Maybe it shouldn't, but it is.
As for the actual meat of the matter: I read your reply on your website and some of your posts here, but I don't really understand what advantage to the wider PostgreSQL community if Fundación PostgreSQL has any trademarks, and only see potential risks. Who knows what will happen with those trademarks in five, ten, or twenty years? You could get hit by a bus tomorrow and whoever ends up in control of the foundation could be a Bad Guy™ or (possibly inadvertently) transfer the trademarks to such a person.
It seems to me that the most logical place to put the trademark is with the same people we trust with the code, and I don't see why we should trust them with the code but not the trademarks?
> 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.
The problem with not doing it through a lawyer is that you might inadvertently say something that could disadvantage you later on if things go to court. The value a lawyer offers here is that they're familiar with all the ins and outs of the relevant laws, and which words may or may not carry meaning if it goes to court.
In many ways it's a lose-lose situation: going through a lawyer can come off as cold, distant, and even threatening, but not doing so risks screwing yourself over. Since they don't really know you or your motivations, going through a lawyer is clearly the best option. Especially when dealing with a bad-faith actor who might do their best to twist words it can really cover yourself. You might say "of course I would never do that!" and I fully believe you're honest in that, but PostgreSQL people have no way of knowing that, not for sure anyway.
So my advice would be to not take that it went through a lawyer as "un-amicable conversation"; it's just how these things work. Maybe it shouldn't, but it is.
As for the actual meat of the matter: I read your reply on your website and some of your posts here, but I don't really understand what advantage to the wider PostgreSQL community if Fundación PostgreSQL has any trademarks, and only see potential risks. Who knows what will happen with those trademarks in five, ten, or twenty years? You could get hit by a bus tomorrow and whoever ends up in control of the foundation could be a Bad Guy™ or (possibly inadvertently) transfer the trademarks to such a person.
It seems to me that the most logical place to put the trademark is with the same people we trust with the code, and I don't see why we should trust them with the code but not the trademarks?