Kevin Ar18 <kevina...@hotmail.com> writes:
> When I first heard about the endeavor, I thought the goal was to take
> one or several of the non-copyleft projects, which were rather
> unfocused, and work with those teams to produce a really good
> implementation for Python. However, as I understand it (based on what
> Greg told me) the license is not really an issue as long as it is not
> GPL; instead, the PostgreSQL team would mostly prefer something that
> is nearly done, so as to have to do much more work. Is this a correct
> assessment?
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.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
