Office's Access XP ODBC DBI from PythonWin

M.-A. Lemburg mal at
Fri Jun 15 12:19:35 CEST 2001

Benjamin Schollnick wrote:
> > mx.ODBC
> > instead
> > > of ODBC? If you don't plan commercial use it is free, and I can certainly
> > > recommend it for ease of use.
> >
> > Seconded.  But a minimally-working free odbc would still be
> > a good thing IMHO.  Say I write utilities to be internally
> > used here at work (commercial use by mx's terms).  As long
> > as I run them on Windows only, I'm OK -- I can program to
> > ADO and connect that to whatever DB engine.  But -- no funds
> > for mxODBC for that use.  So -- no running my utilities on
> > Linux boxes.  Notch one more black mark discouraging this
> > spread of Linux boxes around here:-(.
> Seconded here....
> I was told point blankly by Marc that even though I was using MxODBC,
> for my own non-commercial projects, that since I was using it at work
> it had to be commercially licensed.... Even though the app was not be
> distributed, and just a simple CGI script...

How is this different from using say WinZIP in a commercial
environment ? I believe that the mxODBC license is very liberal
compared to other commercial software (usage is free for private
use, you get the complete source code, etc.) and certainly not
too expensive for a company to license.
> I don't mind that, I can understand where he was coming from... But
> win32's ODBC code seems to work fine for our purposes, and should still
> be developed....or maintained...
> MxODBC can't be the only ODBC code out there.....

ODBC is *very* complicated and maintaining an interface for it 
to make the user experience a painless one *very* time consuming.

Marc-Andre Lemburg
CEO Software GmbH
Company & Consulting:                 
Python Software:              

More information about the Python-list mailing list