Re: Frontend/Backend protocol 3.0
От | Jonathan Fuerth |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Frontend/Backend protocol 3.0 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 474dd43e1c2c41743a9a862f88ad0dd1@sqlpower.ca обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Frontend/Backend protocol 3.0 (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Frontend/Backend protocol 3.0
|
Список | pgsql-odbc |
On Jun 6, 2005, at 1:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > The work is actually being done by another company, Pervasive. The > Command Prompt version is to be GPL and is quite different. > Ok, cool. Where can I find more information about that? I searched this list, googled for "pervasive odbc postgres," and poked around on pervasive.com, but came up dry. I did read the licensing debate in that Command Prompt thread, but it seemed that the consensus was that an ODBC driver links with the driver manager--not the application code--and so the GPL doesn't leak out and infect ODBC client applications that happen to work with a GPL'ed ODBC driver. I guess there would have to be a public statement from Command Prompt, or legal precedent, to make this point of view a little more trustworthy and official. If this interpretation was correct, would it be legal to bundle a GPL'ed ODBC driver with a closed-source application? It certainly did seem to be Command Prompt's intention from the outset to use the dual license model to require "fee-based commercial use," otherwise they could have chosen a less restrictive open source license. If there's anyone left with access to update the psqlodbc gborg site, maybe they could put up a list of links to the "alternative" PostgreSQL ODBC driver projects (and maybe mention the licensing model of each). I don't think I'm the only person who has been suffering from a lack of background knowledge in this regard. Cheers, -Jonathan Fuerth
В списке pgsql-odbc по дате отправления: