Re: Change License

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

In response to

Responses

Browse psycopg by date

  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