Re: License LPGL and commercialization

On 24/02/21 16:24, Hunt, Brian C. wrote:
> I have recently been told by outside council (lawyers) that our
> organization is unable to use LGPL licensed packages in software we plan
> to sell.
>
> We have already built a web app using Python + Django.
>
> Ticket:
>
> #461 (Support use of pypgsql instead of psycopg) – Django
> (djangoproject.com) <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/461>
>
> Seems to suggest the purpose of the LGPL license is not to prevent the
> intended use we have in mind (selling the web app to be hosted locally
> at other organizations). Instead it is to prevent other from building
> off the drivers and then selling those drivers.
>
> Is that the case? Is our intended purpose within the license constraints
> outlined? Can we receive written confirmation that our intended use
> won’t come back to hurt us and we have permission? Or can we not use
> your package in this way? We will be compliant with whatever outcome is
> required. If we need to move away from Django (psycopg2) then we can do
> that if needed.

Dear Brian,

you can use psycopg2 in a proprietary, closed-source application as long
as you don't modify psycopg2 itself and allow your users to replace the
current version of the psycopg2 module with a new one (this is usually
not a problem, unless you want to pack everything in a single
executable). There is the misconception that the LGPL will "contaminate"
Python, then Django and from there your application but this is not the
case: accessing psycopg2 API via Python from a proprietary module is
perfectly fine - we don't consider it "linking".

federico