Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
>> We do - we prefer the community code over the one produced and
>> maintained by a single company, and released under a licence that is
>> potentially very restrictive (depending on the interpretation which
>> has yet to be tested in court afaik).
>
> Uhmmm o.k. now I am ticked. Dave you are full of it on this one. The
> license chosen is one the most trusted Open Source licenses in existed.
> It is the GPL for god sake.
I believe Dave is referring to the part about if the "linking" of a
driver counts enough to force the application to become GPL or not that
hasn't been tested. LGPL conveniently gets around that problem.
> And although we are the primary developers of ODBCng we do accept
> patches, the source can be downloaded via Anonymous SVN.
>
> There is no different between ODBC and ODBCng except your ridiculous and
> ignorant attitude.
>
> The real difference between ODBCng and ODBC is that ODBCng is
> continually tested, continually developed, and continually improved. Or
> is that the part that bothers you?
From what I can tell, psqlODBC is also continually developed, though
maybe at a different speed. But just looking at the repositories shows
latest commit to psqlODBC 12 days ago, and ODBCng 2 months ago... Goes
to show you can twist that reasoning either way.
But, just for the record. I put psqlODBC on top for three reasons.
First, it's claimed to be the official driver. If it should claim to be
that or not is a different discussion, that's how it is now, and that's
what the page should reflect.
Second, the psqlODBC driver is more feature-complete, so it will fit
more peoples requirements. ODBCng doesn't support advanced
authentication methods. It doesn't support versions < 8.0. Last I
checked it didn't support SSL, but maybe that's been fixed?
Third, ODBCng is not a production release (according to your own page, I
make no statement to the code itself, since I haven't looked at it)
//Magnus
