Обсуждение: psycopg2 license changed
Hi *, I just wanted all interested people know that psycopg2 2.0.14 to be released in the next few days will be under the LGPL3 + OpenSSL exception (example code and tests under the LGPL3 alone because they are never linked to OpenSSL). The Zope 2 and 3 adapters will be splitted out into their own packages after next release (i.e., during 2.0.15 development) to facilitate easy_install, etc., and will be available under LGPL3 or ZPL. Changes are already available from public git repository: git://luna.dndg.it/public/psycopg2 I hope this makes everybody happy, have fun, federico -- Federico Di Gregorio fog@initd.orgEverything will be OK at the end. If it's not OK,it's not the end. -- Unknown
On 2/13/10 5:13 PM, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: > Hi *, > > I just wanted all interested people know that psycopg2 2.0.14 to be > released in the next few days will be under the LGPL3 + OpenSSL > exception (example code and tests under the LGPL3 alone because they are > never linked to OpenSSL). Yaaay! Of course, now I'm on the hook to fix bugs. --Josh Berkus
On 14/02/2010 18:33, Josh Berkus wrote: >> I just wanted all interested people know that psycopg2 2.0.14 to be >> > released in the next few days will be under the LGPL3 + OpenSSL >> > exception (example code and tests under the LGPL3 alone because they are >> > never linked to OpenSSL). > Yaaay! > > Of course, now I'm on the hook to fix bugs. Bugs? Which bugs? :) -- Federico Di Gregorio fog@initd.org I filosofi son come i sociologi: il mondo non locapiscono. -- A.R.M.
On Sun, 2010-02-14 at 18:37 +0100, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: > > > > Of course, now I'm on the hook to fix bugs. > > Bugs? Which bugs? :) Come on, you know, "some people" report bugs sometimes ;) -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
Ciao Federico, Federico Di Gregorio ha scritto: > I just wanted all interested people know that psycopg2 2.0.14 to be > released in the next few days will be under the LGPL3 + OpenSSL > exception (example code and tests under the LGPL3 alone because they are > never linked to OpenSSL). > Thank you so much for your contribution! > I hope this makes everybody happy, have fun, > This is great news. I also want to point out that our valuable ITPUG member Daniele Varrazzo has started to write some documentation about PsycoPG2, which can be found here: http://initd.org/psycopg/docs/ It would be good if we could update our wiki as well in order to include this resource too. Ciao, Gabriele -- Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant ItaliaPostgreSQL Training, Services and Supportgabriele.bartolini@2ndQuadrant.it | www.2ndQuadrant.it
Federico Di Gregorio wrote: > I just wanted all interested people know that psycopg2 2.0.14 to be > released in the next few days will be under the LGPL3 + OpenSSL > exception (example code and tests under the LGPL3 alone because they are > never linked to OpenSSL). > Great news and I look forward to the release. One small thing to consider: having more than one license can turn into a cost to users of your software who are required to have each license reviewed for legal issues, and I'd think that maintaining two has some cost for you too. If it's possible for you to fold all these into a single license, that would really be a lot nicer. Being able to say "psycopg2 is LGPL3 + OpenSSL exception", period, is much easier for people to deal with than having two licenses and needing to include the description you gave above for explanation. Having to educate a lawyer on how linking works, so they understand the subtle distinction for why the two licenses exist, is no fun at all. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us
On 15/02/2010 20:12, Greg Smith wrote: > Federico Di Gregorio wrote: >> I just wanted all interested people know that psycopg2 2.0.14 to be >> released in the next few days will be under the LGPL3 + OpenSSL >> exception (example code and tests under the LGPL3 alone because they are >> never linked to OpenSSL). > > Great news and I look forward to the release. One small thing to > consider: having more than one license can turn into a cost to users of > your software who are required to have each license reviewed for legal > issues, and I'd think that maintaining two has some cost for you too. > If it's possible for you to fold all these into a single license, that > would really be a lot nicer. Being able to say "psycopg2 is LGPL3 + > OpenSSL exception", period, is much easier for people to deal with than > having two licenses and needing to include the description you gave > above for explanation. Having to educate a lawyer on how linking works, > so they understand the subtle distinction for why the two licenses > exist, is no fun at all. 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.) federico -- Federico Di Gregorio federico.digregorio@dndg.it Studio Associato Di Nunzio e Di Gregorio http://dndg.it God is in the rain...-- Evey Hammond
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. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us
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.) Yes, I believe you must contact any code contributors before changing the license because the assumption is that those code contributions matched the license at the time the code was contributed. If the license changes, the original contributions retain the original license unless you get their approval. Dave Page went through this when he changed the license of pgAdmin --- he had to contact all previous code contributors to get their approval. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
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. +