Re: psycopg2 license changed

Greg Smith wrote:
> Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > Even if tests and examples code aren't almost never distributed except
> > in the psycopg2 source package? A couple of other people contributed to
> > the tests: if you really feel like it is so important I'll contact them
> > and ask their permission to use the LGPL3 + exception (the contribution
> > was without the exception) or remove the code (we won't lose much.)
> >   
> 
> I understand that from a technical perspective these are all different 
> bits.  But the sort of people who get stressed about licenses might not, 
> and that's why it's always better to have a simple, standard, unified 
> license that covers the entire chunk of software you're packaging.  If 
> the examples show up in the source package, that means the source 
> package has two licenses instead of one, and that's a bad thing.  It's 
> not a huge issue, I'm just afraid that if you don't get this nailed down 
> now there's just going to another round of this tedious license 
> investigation in the future one day.  I'd think it's better for you and 
> everyone else in the long run to just completely unify the license.
> 
> And if takes another release for the examples to get that license 
> change, I think that's OK.  I wouldn't hold up the big work 
> here--getting your next release out with the big LGPL3 switch for the 
> main code--over this bit of trivia.  I just think it's a potential 
> future headache you should try to remove when you can.

Agreed.  A single license is easier unless there is some value in having
two licenses.  Doing another release to improve the license is certainly
worthwhile.

I also want to thank you for being flexible on this licensing issue.  I
never suspected we would come up with a solution so quickly.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +