Re: commercial license availability

On Friday 14 September 2012, Vishnu VV wrote:
> Hi Danielle,
>
> The concern is with LGPL v3 in a closed appliance in the consumer space;
> and that we would have to allow others to patch the product with an updated
> version of the library. We have no issue releasing any improvements made
> to the driver back to the community, the concern is if we would end up
> exposing other commercial code that would be required to patch the driver
> in our product.
>

FUD.

LGPLv[2|3] won't affect your software using this library in any way. It doesn't
even mean that the "source code" has to come from the customer's production
machine. But only requires that you disclose any code you hacked *inside*
psycopg2, for your product.

There is, sure, some rules of GPL, mainly aimed to secure the fair play
between the community, you, and your customers:
- you have to give back any improvements on the library
- if you place locks, restrictions or backdoors into psycopg2, you have to
disclose them too!
- you cannot claim to your customer that you built all this by yourself, but
need to admit that you used open-source components.

So, you are not happy with these rules?
Without them, we wouldn't have had all this wealth and quality of OSS.

Written on 15th Sep, http://www.softwarefreedomday.org/

--
Say NO to spam and viruses. Stop using Microsoft Windows!