From: | Tobias Oberstein <tobias(dot)oberstein(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com>, Abraham Elmahrek <abe(at)cloudera(dot)com> |
Cc: | "psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org" <psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Change License |
Date: | 2013-12-10 09:16:39 |
Message-ID: | 52A6DBF7.7020303@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | psycopg |
Am 10.12.2013 09:45, schrieb Daniele Varrazzo:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Abraham Elmahrek <abe(at)cloudera(dot)com> wrote:
>> Hey Guys,
>>
>> Would the postgresql community be willing to change the current license of
>> psycopg2 from LGPL to something compatible with ASLv2 (ie ASLv2, BSD, MIT,
>> etc.)? I work on a project that can definitely benefit from psycopg2, but I
>> cannot package it with the LGPL license.
>
> Can psycopg benefit from your project too? http://www.cloudera.com/
;)
Independent from above, I am wondering why these "issues" would pop up
anyway:
In my view, a program that _uses_ Psycopg2 is not a derivative work, and
can use any licensing terms it likes. This is what the LGPL says:
"A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library,
but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked
with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in
isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls
outside the scope of this License."
So a program that merely uses the Python DBI interfaces of Psycopg2, and
even the Psycopg2 specific (non-DBI) interface parts of Psycopg2 would
be a "work that uses the Library". And can be licensed under any terms.
@Daniele: Is that also your interpretation?
/Tobias
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Federico Di Gregorio | 2013-12-10 10:14:16 | Re: Change License |
Previous Message | Tobias Oberstein | 2013-12-10 09:09:42 | Re: Change License |