Re: Change License
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Change License |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEz=Q-Dgq=6AXYZusK6jrETSp0dVs95eS90=82TTEJpMbQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Change License (Abraham Elmahrek <abe@cloudera.com>) |
| Список | psycopg |
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Abraham Elmahrek <abe@cloudera.com> wrote:
I think the correct page to reference would have been http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html. Sorry about that...My understanding is that the third-party licensing policy page is simply guidelines for how to interpret ASLv2. The resolved page insists that LGPL shouldn't be included in apache projects. I do think that extends to any project with ASLv2 license since it seems like an interpretation of the license itself.LGPL is a great license. I can understand why LGPL was chosen for postgresql and its various subprojects. It makes perfect sense to control the rights of a project and guide users to contribute back to the original code base. psycopg2 is, how ever, a client. It seems less likely that a client would be forked than the postgresql code base itself. Also, making a client packageable in every other project seems like a great goal, irrespective of licensing.
Just to be clear, PostgreSQL does *not* use LGPL. It uses the Postgresql License, which is a permissive license similar to the MIT license.
Subprojects choose their own licenses of course. Some adopt the same license, some use one of the other standard licenses.
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке psycopg по дате отправления: