From: Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>
Cc: Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org>
Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: change to interfaces.html
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:02:48 -0800
Message-ID: <473DBF28.2080903@commandprompt.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <473DBC91.3000409@hagander.net>
References: <20071115105151.79ff8061@scratch>
<473C9D0A.1090409@hagander.net>
<20071115112738.60c3a837@scratch>
<9B276A8E7D64C7A3E5CFD1ED@ganymede.hub.org>
<473D5A2A.9070904@postgresql.org>
<C198CEF1186974C7C668719D@ganymede.hub.org>
<473D6006.7080504@postgresql.org>
<473DB9E9.3000006@commandprompt.com>
<473DBC91.3000409@hagander.net>
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
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: jd@commandprompt.com, magnus@hagander.net, dpage@postgresql.org, scrappy@hub.org, pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: change to interfaces.html
In-Reply-To: <473DBF28.2080903@commandprompt.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox