Hi Ian. Thank you for your reply. I realize that there is nothing ill
intended by the licensing and that it is likely the license will not
change in future. It is a fine piece of software and you have
contributed some really nice and useful code for development.
Regards,
David
Ian Bicking wrote:
Kevin Dangoor wrote:
On 12/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The only trouble I am having has to do with SQLObjects licensing (since
python's bytecode generation is compiling in my view) and this leaves
things ambiguous with any project code generated (as far as SQLObjects
LGPL licensing). Personally, I believe SQLObjects is a great object
relational wrapper and I like it a lot. I wish the licensing were
different but I don't think that is about to change any time soon.
That's a very interesting read of the LGPL. I'd also prefer it if
SQLObject were MIT/BSD licensed, but that may be a difficult switch at
this point.
However, I don't think Ian Bicking's interpretation of the LGPL and
how it applies to users of SQLObject is the same as yours. Ian's on
this list so maybe he can comment, but I'm pretty sure that there is
nothing to fear in using SQLObject.
Yes, I don't interpret the LGPL this way -- it's rather vague in
relation to Python (and I wouldn't choose LGPL again largely because of
that). I interpret it as meaning that the license does not effect code
outside of the sqlobject package.
I think such declarations of intent do have some legal meaning; after
all, Linus has declared that the GPL doesn't apply to binary modules,
and that seems to be enough for lots of commercial users to feel
sufficiently comfortable with it.
