Quoting Ashish Ranjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2) in my opinion, for this what if we make it DUAL licensed: > LGPL = so that GPL/LGPL s/w guys and linux distributions > are at ease with it. > BSD = so that commercial/proprietary products can > STATICALLY link libdbi with their products with ease. and then > although libdbi-drivers is currently dynamically linked, but dual > licensing it will spawn attempts to make it statically linkable too. > I'm not very fond of severing our license hassles with thinking about dual licensing, as the sole purpose according to your statement would be to encourage a use of libdbi-drivers which is contrary to the design of the whole libdbi project. libdbi was specifically designed with a plugin system to allow end-users switch the database engines by simply installing another dll into the driver directory. Statically linking the drivers into a binary essentially makes libdbi obsolete as you could use the native database client libraries just as well. This would be like feeding a calf with the butter made out of the milk of its mother. Frankly, I don't see no reason why a commercial vendor would ever want to go down this path. Therefore we should not let this guide our move to release libdbi-drivers under a unified license. regards, Markus -- Markus Hoenicka [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Spam-protected email: replace the quadrupeds with "mhoenicka") http://www.mhoenicka.de ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Libdbi-drivers-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libdbi-drivers-devel
