[Top] [All Lists]

Re: DMBS Add-ons for Performance Co-Pilot

To: kenmcd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: DMBS Add-ons for Performance Co-Pilot
From: Alan Hoyt <ahoyt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:09:04 -0500
Cc: Mark Boyd <mark.boyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Howland <chris.howland@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, PCP <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Said Maafala'" <orapmda@xxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307261521400.17504-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307261521400.17504-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: pcp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030718
kenmcd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

My apologies for the tardiness in responding here ... we've had several
overlapping issues that have been demanding the attention of our open
source engineers and our legal team.

I would like to make the following proposal:

1. We bundle all of the source for the dbms PMDAs into one package
   to be known as "DBMS Add-ons for Performance Co-Pilot".  This would
   include PMDA implementations for (old) verions of Oracle, Sybase,

   The name issue is important, because Performance Co-Pilot is a
   trademark of SGI, and we have to take certain actions to protect
   that trademark, and one of them is to ensure that there is no
   confusion between the _real_ PCP, and something that "works with PCP".
   Similarly adding Oracle, Informix and Sybase to the title will only
   risk incuring the wrath of a different bunch of lawyers.

2. We negotiate and select someone to act as the gatekeeper for this

What would have to be negotiated?

   SGI is not planning to maintain any down-stream responsibility for
   this code, so in particular we do not want to deal with bug reports
   or patches.

Make's sense - sometimes I don't even like maintaining my own code let alone someone else's :-)

   We are willing to add a pointer to it from the PCP project
   page on oss.sgi.com.

3. We will make the source in 1. available to the person(s) selected in
   2. under the standard GPL.

   Thereafter, you can do with it as you please, subject to the terms and
   conditions of the GPL.

Is this acceptable?


Could I ask for volunteers as per 2. above?

I would like to volunteer as the primary maintainer and help facilitate the merging/consolidation of Chris's/Mark's agents with the older SGI authored agents.

That being said, I would prefer to use Sourceforge as the venue for providing adjunct PCP agents to the Open Source community – i.e. those agents that are not/will not be supported by SGI (including my Solaris agent).

 - Alan -

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>