On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:22:46AM +0200, Albe Laurenz wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> Question 1 is wrong, because Npgsql is no commercial .NET data provider. > >> That's the main advantage: it is open source. > > > > This is actually a misconception. Open Source doesn't disqualify it as > > commercial. It disqualifies it as proprietary. I can make money > > providing consulting for Npgsql, that makes it commercial or at least > > the opportunity for it to be commercial. > > > > Not to be pedantic but let's be accurate with our data. We are database > > people after all :) > > Thank you for the correction. > > Although I'd say that the fact that you can make money by consulting > for something does not make it commercial software. Maybe I'm wrong. "Commercial" means, "used in commerce." It has nothing to do with the terms under which the software's source code is (or is not) available. > But it is of course possible to forbid people to use your open > source software unless they pay for it, which would make it > commercial in my eyes. That would make it *proprietary*, as no FLOSS license allows such a restriction. > This is getting off topic, sorry. Vaguely. Has that stopped us before? ;) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@xxxxxxxxxx> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@xxxxxxxxx Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
