> 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
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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: u235sentinel||Date: 2010-02-11 04:05:55|
|Subject: Re: Postgres Triggers issue|
|Previous:||From: Euler Taveira de Oliveira||Date: 2010-02-11 03:55:43|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] Output configuration status after ./configure