Re: change to interfaces.html - Mailing list pgsql-www
From | Joshua D. Drake |
---|---|
Subject | Re: change to interfaces.html |
Date | |
Msg-id | 473DBF28.2080903@commandprompt.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: change to interfaces.html (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Responses |
Re: change to interfaces.html
(Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>)
Re: change to interfaces.html ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>) |
List | pgsql-www |
Magnus Hagander wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > 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. As opposed to a license that is licensed by an entity that doesn't exist? It is *not* the projects responsibility to declare the legality of licensing. The driver *is* open source. The driver *is* available via SVN. The driver *is* publicly developed, and anyone can comment or contribute. > > 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 Which is also bogus and a deprecated claim. Dave himself has stated that PostgreSQL.Org has no ability to declare what is official. (When we announced PostgreSQL conference) Further if it is the "official" driver, then it has a huge amount of code cleanup that needs to be done. (not that ours is any better :P) > more peoples requirements. ODBCng doesn't support advanced > authentication methods. That is correct, we only support the ones most people use. > It doesn't support versions < 8.0. Last I That is also correct but I hardly consider whether or not we support ungodly old versions of PostgreSQL relevant. > checked it didn't support SSL, but maybe that's been fixed? > Oddly enough, I don't know. I would have to ask Andrei. > Third, ODBCng is not a production release (according to your own page, I Declaring something production and having it actually be production quality are two different things. If you are saying that I would move up the meter by saying, "Here here is 1.0" then I guess I could do that. Honestly, I don't care that ODBCng is listed below psqlODBC. If I had cared I would have asked you not to accept the patch when you made the changes. That is not why I am upset. I am upset because of the absolutely stupid remark that it is not community code. I will say it one more time for the cheap seats: Just because a company does the primary development that does not mean it is not community code. Command Prompt is "core" on the ODBCng project. Nothing more. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake