-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 22:07:56 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> [ Discussion moved to "interfaces" list.]
>
> I think the unspoken complaint is why you would license an ODBC driver
> as GPL rather than LGPL, especially if you are not trying to enforce a
> burden on linked software. Frankly I thought the LGPL was the GPL
> without the linking clause, so why use the GPL in that case
Exactly why does it matter to you how we license our software? The only
thing that matters is that it is open source. That's it. Nothing more.
>
> Of course, you can license it however you want, but my bet is that is
> the underlying complaint, and the fact that ODBCng is kind of a fork
> of the psqlODBC driver that can't really be used because of the GPL,
The ODBCng driver is *not* a fork in any way shape or form of the
psqlODBC driver.
> no matter how much you say there is no link/source burden. It feels
> like a GPL splinter project, kind of like taking the Postgres backend
> code and trying to release a GPL version (which you also could do,
> but community members aren't going to be thrilled about it).
The analogy makes less than zero sense. We didn't take psqlODBC code.
We started from scratch. When ODBCng started, psqlODBC was dead and no
development had happen for a long time, psqlODBC was also libpq based
which we wanted nothing to do with.
(yes I am fully aware that psqlODBC no longer needs libpq except for
auth methods).
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHPl4BATb/zqfZUUQRAtcxAKCPXC6/rMo4SCPNNb/3pa6eBVxcigCfYuYt
Ghda0bTsUqeT9QtQnd3LsCw=
=npkx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
