I hope people don't mind my asking about this on the list... as I hinted at before, I don't really follow the development of PostgreSQL, I was just interested in the Python driver project that I heard about.
Anyways, as I understand it, the current goal is to use psycopg and get it changed to LGPL (assuming all the contributors of psycopg agree and confirm they did not use GPL code from any other location). Is this correct?
When I first heard about the endeavor, I thought the goal was to take one or several of the non-copyleft projects, which were rather unfocused, and work with those teams to produce a really good implementation for Python. However, as I understand it (based on what Greg told me) the license is not really an issue as long as it is not GPL; instead, the PostgreSQL team would mostly prefer something that is nearly done, so as to have to do much more work. Is this a correct assessment?
Based on that, I guess my question is what would it have taken to have picked one of BSD/MIT projects and working with those people instead? In other words, what key things affected the decision for psycopg? What areas is it so far ahead in or that would have just been too much work to fix in the other implementations?
Anyways, I hope this message doesn't come across as bad form. It's unfortunate for me that there was not a good enough BSD/MIT project; but I can live without right? :) Still, I just thought I might ask and find out a little more about what the team was looking for in a PostgreSQL implementation, and maybe do a little research myself (to see if anything was missed).
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Marko Tiikkaja||Date: 2010-02-11 01:44:22|
|Subject: Re: Writeable CTEs and empty relations|
|Previous:||From: Ragi Y. Burhum||Date: 2010-02-11 00:49:59|
|Subject: knngist patch support|