From: | Kevin Ar18 <kevinar18(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Confusion over Python drivers {license} |
Date: | 2010-02-11 04:04:29 |
Message-ID: | SNT110-W3408CEC4CE2675437CA99DAA4E0@phx.gbl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Well, all else being equal we'd certainly prefer a library that was
> licensed more like the core Postgres database. However, we don't have
> infinite resources, and an LGPL license is not a showstopper (at least
> not to the people who seem to be willing to work on this problem).
> The attractiveness of the license has to be balanced against how much
> work we'd have to put in and how long it will take to get results.
>
> Not being a python user myself, I wasn't paying all that close attention
> to the discussion, but that's my sense of how the decision went.
>
> If you feel that a BSD/MIT license is a must-have for your purposes,
> you're certainly free to push development of one of the other driver
> projects instead, and to try to organize some other people to help.
> I don't believe anyone is trying to funnel all development effort into
> psycopg2.
Thanks for the reply.
I guess that's good advice; I suppose I should just do that and talk to some of the teams about it. It would probably help a lot to focus on just one implementation instead of several, even if it's not the same one as what the PostgreSQL team works on. :)
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | u235sentinel | 2010-02-11 04:05:55 | Re: Postgres Triggers issue |
Previous Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2010-02-11 03:55:43 | Re: [PATCH] Output configuration status after ./configure run. |