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. +
