Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26E562E2D6B for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:42:42 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 54035-08 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:42:39 -0400 (AST) Received: from developer.pgadmin.org (developer.pgadmin.org [63.246.23.140]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 781492E2DD6 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:42:39 -0400 (AST) Received: from [172.16.0.68] ([78.149.184.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by developer.pgadmin.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lAGGgU6T023559 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:42:32 GMT Message-ID: <473DC879.8010003@postgresql.org> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:42:33 +0000 From: Dave Page User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Sullivan CC: pgsql-www@postgresql.org Subject: Re: change to interfaces.html References: <20071115105151.79ff8061@scratch> <473C9D0A.1090409@hagander.net> <20071115112738.60c3a837@scratch> <9B276A8E7D64C7A3E5CFD1ED@ganymede.hub.org> <473D5A2A.9070904@postgresql.org> <473D6006.7080504@postgresql.org> <473DB9E9.3000006@commandprompt.com> <473DBE05.2030609@postgresql.org> <20071116163542.GL24718@crankycanuck.ca> In-Reply-To: <20071116163542.GL24718@crankycanuck.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200711/293 X-Sequence-Number: 13071 Andrew Sullivan wrote: > I'd prefer we not get into a flamewar over this, all, but I'm a little > concerned about this: > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 03:57:57PM +0000, Dave Page wrote: >> - The general Open Source community's annoyance at MySQL GPL'ing their >> drivers precisely because they want people to pay for the non-GPL licence. > > I think the complaint there is the dual licence stuff, and not the GPL as > such (at least, I'd hope so, since otherwise there'd be a similar objection > to the linux kernel licence, and there doesn't seem to be). I don't see on > the ODBCng pages any suggestion of a second licence. Is there? No - I was pointing out that MySQL are an example of a company using the uncertainty of how the GPL would or would not apply to an ODBC driver to help them sell software. I should make it clear that I do not believe that is JD/Command Prompt's intention - JD has stated a number of times that they follow the more liberal interpretation. /D