Re: Change License

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Abraham Elmahrek <abe(at)cloudera(dot)com> wrote:

> I think the correct page to reference would have been
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html. Sorry about that...
>
> My understanding is that the third-party licensing policy page is simply
> guidelines for how to interpret ASLv2. The resolved page insists that LGPL
> shouldn't be included in apache projects. I do think that extends to any
> project with ASLv2 license since it seems like an interpretation of the
> license itself.
>
> LGPL is a great license. I can understand why LGPL was chosen for
> postgresql and its various subprojects. It makes perfect sense to control
> the rights of a project and guide users to contribute back to the original
> code base. psycopg2 is, how ever, a client. It seems less likely that a
> client would be forked than the postgresql code base itself. Also, making a
> client packageable in every other project seems like a great goal,
> irrespective of licensing.
>
>
Just to be clear, PostgreSQL does *not* use LGPL. It uses the Postgresql
License, which is a permissive license similar to the MIT license.

Subprojects choose their own licenses of course. Some adopt the same
license, some use one of the other standard licenses.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/