Well maybe you are right and they weren't thinking anything, and I always hate when programmers have built in limitations for strings, that's just beyond belief. However, for a database, no one is going to see it. The database name is just a place holder, so why not reduce the size of the name to something simple like VI_VC or VCDS.
It's not going to have a presence anywhere else except inside the database, so if it's limited, keep it small. It doesn't make sense that they saw fit to restrict this string size (maybe perhaps because they ASSUMED nobody would make a name that big) but seeing as how you are apparently the only person to uncover this shortcoming thus far, I think you are in the minority, and that's why no one has responded.
This isn't a bug to me, since as you noted you can address a database by a much longer DSN than the actual Table name in SQL. Therefore, this probably won't be a high priority on the list of fixes.
