Jonathan Fuerth wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2005, at 1:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > The work is actually being done by another company, Pervasive. The
> > Command Prompt version is to be GPL and is quite different.
> >
> Ok, cool. Where can I find more information about that? I searched
> this list, googled for "pervasive odbc postgres," and poked around on
> pervasive.com, but came up dry.
>
> I did read the licensing debate in that Command Prompt thread, but it
> seemed that the consensus was that an ODBC driver links with the driver
> manager--not the application code--and so the GPL doesn't leak out and
> infect ODBC client applications that happen to work with a GPL'ed ODBC
> driver. I guess there would have to be a public statement from Command
> Prompt, or legal precedent, to make this point of view a little more
> trustworthy and official. If this interpretation was correct, would it
> be legal to bundle a GPL'ed ODBC driver with a closed-source
> application?
>
> It certainly did seem to be Command Prompt's intention from the outset
> to use the dual license model to require "fee-based commercial use,"
> otherwise they could have chosen a less restrictive open source
> license.
>
> If there's anyone left with access to update the psqlodbc gborg site,
> maybe they could put up a list of links to the "alternative" PostgreSQL
> ODBC driver projects (and maybe mention the licensing model of each).
> I don't think I'm the only person who has been suffering from a lack of
> background knowledge in this regard.
OK, who is working on improving ODBC at this point? Please give us a
status report.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
