Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Confusion over Python drivers {license}

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 (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: u235sentinelDate: 2010-02-11 04:05:55
Subject: Re: Postgres Triggers issue
Previous:From: Euler Taveira de OliveiraDate: 2010-02-11 03:55:43
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Output configuration status after ./configure run.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group