Thread: Change License
Hey Guys,
Would the postgresql community be willing to change the current license of psycopg2 from LGPL to something compatible with ASLv2 (ie ASLv2, BSD, MIT, etc.)? I work on a project that can definitely benefit from psycopg2, but I cannot package it with the LGPL license.
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Abraham Elmahrek <abe@cloudera.com> wrote: > Hey Guys, > > Would the postgresql community be willing to change the current license of > psycopg2 from LGPL to something compatible with ASLv2 (ie ASLv2, BSD, MIT, > etc.)? I work on a project that can definitely benefit from psycopg2, but I > cannot package it with the LGPL license. Can psycopg benefit from your project too? http://www.cloudera.com/ -- Daniele
Am 10.12.2013 01:27, schrieb Abraham Elmahrek: > Hey Guys, > > Would the postgresql community be willing to change the current license > of psycopg2 from LGPL to something compatible with ASLv2 (ie ASLv2, BSD, > MIT, etc.)? I work on a project that can definitely benefit from > psycopg2, but I cannot package it with the LGPL license. > Could you describe the project, the project's license and why you think you cannot use it due to the LGPL? /Tobias
Am 10.12.2013 09:45, schrieb Daniele Varrazzo: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Abraham Elmahrek <abe@cloudera.com> wrote: >> Hey Guys, >> >> Would the postgresql community be willing to change the current license of >> psycopg2 from LGPL to something compatible with ASLv2 (ie ASLv2, BSD, MIT, >> etc.)? I work on a project that can definitely benefit from psycopg2, but I >> cannot package it with the LGPL license. > > Can psycopg benefit from your project too? http://www.cloudera.com/ ;) Independent from above, I am wondering why these "issues" would pop up anyway: In my view, a program that _uses_ Psycopg2 is not a derivative work, and can use any licensing terms it likes. This is what the LGPL says: "A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License." So a program that merely uses the Python DBI interfaces of Psycopg2, and even the Psycopg2 specific (non-DBI) interface parts of Psycopg2 would be a "work that uses the Library". And can be licensed under any terms. @Daniele: Is that also your interpretation? /Tobias
On 10/12/2013 10:16, Tobias Oberstein wrote: > Independent from above, I am wondering why these "issues" would pop up > anyway: They will never pop up away. Even when psycopg2 was GPL + exception that specified that a program using it is NOT a derivative work people keep asking about that. federico -- Federico Di Gregorio federico.digregorio@dndg.it Di Nunzio & Di Gregorio srl http://dndg.it La mia nuova versione del mondo prevede una consapevolezza distribuita e insapore. -- sisterconfusion
Hey Guys,
Thanks for the speedy responses. I work on the Hue project at Cloudera. Hue is an ASLv2 licensed project and according too http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.htm LGPL is excluded from the list of shippable licenses. The end goal is to be able to ship psycopg2 since it's a complete client for postgresql that django fully supports.
-Abe
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Federico Di Gregorio <fog@dndg.it> wrote:
On 10/12/2013 10:16, Tobias Oberstein wrote:They will never pop up away. Even when psycopg2 was GPL + exception that
> Independent from above, I am wondering why these "issues" would pop up
> anyway:
specified that a program using it is NOT a derivative work people keep
asking about that.
federico
--
Federico Di Gregorio federico.digregorio@dndg.it
Di Nunzio & Di Gregorio srl http://dndg.it
La mia nuova versione del mondo prevede una consapevolezza
distribuita e insapore. -- sisterconfusion
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Abraham Elmahrek <abe@cloudera.com> wrote: > Hey Guys, > > Thanks for the speedy responses. I work on the Hue project at Cloudera. Hue > is an ASLv2 licensed project and according too > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.htm LGPL is excluded from the list of > shippable licenses. The end goal is to be able to ship psycopg2 since it's a > complete client for postgresql that django fully supports. Note: the correct url above is <http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html>. I didn't know the Apache Software Foundation was in open war with the GPL. Well, too bad: it seems you chose the wrong license for your software. We could be able to provide a personal, non-transferable license for projects whose lawyers insist to require it; however your license seems to forbid this option too. I'm afraid the chance to see psycopg released with a non-LGPL license are quite low. -- Daniele
On Wednesday 11 December 2013, Daniele Varrazzo wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Abraham Elmahrek <abe@cloudera.com> wrote: > > Hey Guys, > > > > Thanks for the speedy responses. I work on the Hue project at Cloudera. > > Note: the correct url above is <http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html>. > > I didn't know the Apache Software Foundation was in open war with the > GPL. Well, too bad: it seems you chose the wrong license for your > software. ++ I agree. IMHO the restriction is the ASL that forbids you to use other /open/ licenses. Very strange that they do so, as your code would /link/ against psycopg2, not technically /derive/ from it. I would also vote against re-licensing psycopg2, as that would introduce a backdoor for /not contributing/ back any improvements. LGPL is a wonderful license, it does not "infect" users of the library, but only requires that you push back work you do on our project. -- Disclaimer waiver: When you send me an unencrypted email, you implicitly allow me, or any 3rd person reading our mails, to do anything I/they wish with your data (including presenting them in public). Your disclaimer, thus, is void. If you had wanted a private communication, you should have used encryption in the first place.
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:57 AM, P. Christeas <xrg@linux.gr> wrote:
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Wednesday 11 December 2013, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Abraham Elmahrek <abe@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > Hey Guys,
> >
> > Thanks for the speedy responses. I work on the Hue project at Cloudera.
>> Note: the correct url above is <http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html>.++ I agree.
>
> I didn't know the Apache Software Foundation was in open war with the
> GPL. Well, too bad: it seems you chose the wrong license for your
> software.
IMHO the restriction is the ASL that forbids you to use other /open/ licenses.
Very strange that they do so, as your code would /link/ against psycopg2, not
technically /derive/ from it.
AIUI they *don't* forbid that. They specifically say you can put LGPL things under your "system requirements" for example. The rule is only against *bundling* it, because that further restricts downstream distribution of the *bundle*. (And it's not the ASL that makes the restrictions, it's the ASF. And even as such, it's only a *proposal*)
With GPL (not LGPL) you can't even *require* it, it has to be optional. But that does not apply to LGPL.
I would also vote against re-licensing psycopg2, as that would introduce a
backdoor for /not contributing/ back any improvements.
I don't think that is the main problem - though it's of course a consideration. Personally I'd *prefer* if all major drivers for PostgreSQL were licensed under the same license as PostgreSQL, because it would make a lot of things just so much easier. And I think history has proven that our community is pretty good at contributing back. And even if not, I wouldn't be so worried about that wrt a driver - I would be more worried when it comes to things like pgadmin.
That said, I'm not sure it's worth going through the pain of doing it even if you wanted. pgAdmin changed over to the PostgreSQL license a few years ago, and it was a PITA. Mainly because you have to find every single author of every single line of code in it and have those people sign off on the change. I have no idea how much work that would be for psycopg2 in the first place, but I doubt it's worth it since the license is LGPL.
If the license today had been GPL, it would have been a real problem that would have to be addressed. But if it had been, I doubt psycopg2 would've reached the level of popularity it has today, so I think that's a moot point :)
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Am 10.12.2013 23:10, schrieb Abraham Elmahrek: > Hey Guys, > > Thanks for the speedy responses. I work on the Hue project at Cloudera. > Hue is an ASLv2 licensed project and according too > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.htm LGPL is excluded from the list of > shippable licenses. The end goal is to be able to ship psycopg2 since > it's a complete client for postgresql that django fully supports. The text above is a proposed policy of the Apache foundation. It is irrelevant with regard to rights and obligations of code licensed under the Apache license. You can use, bundle and ship Apache licensed code together with LGPL licensed code. No ASF "proposal" or "policy" text can restrict you to do so. The only relevant texts are the 2 licenses. /Tobias > > -Abe > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Federico Di Gregorio <fog@dndg.it > <mailto:fog@dndg.it>> wrote: > > On 10/12/2013 10:16, Tobias Oberstein wrote: > > Independent from above, I am wondering why these "issues" would > pop up > > anyway: > > They will never pop up away. Even when psycopg2 was GPL + exception that > specified that a program using it is NOT a derivative work people keep > asking about that. > > federico > > -- > Federico Di Gregorio federico.digregorio@dndg.it > <mailto:federico.digregorio@dndg.it> > Di Nunzio & Di Gregorio srl http://dndg.it > La mia nuova versione del mondo prevede una consapevolezza > distribuita e insapore. -- > sisterconfusion > >
Am 11.12.2013 10:10, schrieb Abraham Elmahrek: > 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. If that were true, other (large/significant) projects would have a problem: E.g. JBoss is licensed under LGPL 2.1 and uses various Apache 2.0 code inside (various things from Apache Commons and other for logging etc). https://community.jboss.org/thread/147636 http://www.tldrlegal.com/compare?a=Apache+License+2.0+%28Apache-2.0%29&b=GNU+Lesser+General+Public+License+v2.1+%28LGPL-2.1%29 /Tobias > > 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. > > Also, thanks for all the responses. It's great to see so much > involvement from the community. I definitely appreciate it! > -Abe > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Federico Di Gregorio <fog@dndg.it > <mailto:fog@dndg.it>> wrote: > > On 11/12/2013 03:47, Daniele Varrazzo wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Abraham Elmahrek > <abe@cloudera.com <mailto:abe@cloudera.com>> wrote: > >> > Hey Guys, > >> > > >> > Thanks for the speedy responses. I work on the Hue project at > Cloudera. Hue > >> > is an ASLv2 licensed project and according too > >> > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.htm LGPL is excluded from > the list of > >> > shippable licenses. The end goal is to be able to ship > psycopg2 since it's a > >> > complete client for postgresql that django fully supports. > > Note: the correct url above is > <http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html>. > > > > I didn't know the Apache Software Foundation was in open war with the > > GPL. Well, too bad: it seems you chose the wrong license for your > > software. > > > > We could be able to provide a personal, non-transferable license for > > projects whose lawyers insist to require it; however your license > > seems to forbid this option too. > > > > I'm afraid the chance to see psycopg released with a non-LGPL license > > are quite low. > > I'd say they are 0. :) > > federico > > -- > Federico Di Gregorio federico.digregorio@dndg.it > <mailto:federico.digregorio@dndg.it> > Di Nunzio & Di Gregorio srl http://dndg.it > Non vi sono certezze, solo opportunità. > -- V > >
On 11/12/2013 03:47, Daniele Varrazzo wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Abraham Elmahrek <abe@cloudera.com> wrote: >> > Hey Guys, >> > >> > Thanks for the speedy responses. I work on the Hue project at Cloudera. Hue >> > is an ASLv2 licensed project and according too >> > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.htm LGPL is excluded from the list of >> > shippable licenses. The end goal is to be able to ship psycopg2 since it's a >> > complete client for postgresql that django fully supports. > Note: the correct url above is <http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html>. > > I didn't know the Apache Software Foundation was in open war with the > GPL. Well, too bad: it seems you chose the wrong license for your > software. > > We could be able to provide a personal, non-transferable license for > projects whose lawyers insist to require it; however your license > seems to forbid this option too. > > I'm afraid the chance to see psycopg released with a non-LGPL license > are quite low. I'd say they are 0. :) federico -- Federico Di Gregorio federico.digregorio@dndg.it Di Nunzio & Di Gregorio srl http://dndg.it Non vi sono certezze, solo opportunità. -- V
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.
Also, thanks for all the responses. It's great to see so much involvement from the community. I definitely appreciate it!
-Abe
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Federico Di Gregorio <fog@dndg.it> wrote:
I'd say they are 0. :)On 11/12/2013 03:47, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Abraham Elmahrek <abe@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> > Hey Guys,
>> >
>> > Thanks for the speedy responses. I work on the Hue project at Cloudera. Hue
>> > is an ASLv2 licensed project and according too
>> > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.htm LGPL is excluded from the list of
>> > shippable licenses. The end goal is to be able to ship psycopg2 since it's a
>> > complete client for postgresql that django fully supports.
> Note: the correct url above is <http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html>.
>
> I didn't know the Apache Software Foundation was in open war with the
> GPL. Well, too bad: it seems you chose the wrong license for your
> software.
>
> We could be able to provide a personal, non-transferable license for
> projects whose lawyers insist to require it; however your license
> seems to forbid this option too.
>
> I'm afraid the chance to see psycopg released with a non-LGPL license
> are quite low.Non vi sono certezze, solo opportunità. -- V
federico
--
Federico Di Gregorio federico.digregorio@dndg.it
Di Nunzio & Di Gregorio srl http://dndg.it
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/
If you read the page you linked to, they're saying that Apache Foundation products can not use LGPL licenses. They are not talking about users of the Apache license.
If you want Hue to be an Apache Foundation product at some point, it sounds like the Apache Foundation would want it to be licensed with the Apache license before accepting it. Having said that, nothing in either license prohibits you (as maintainers of Hue) from linking against the psycopg2 python library from your Apache-licensed library.
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:10 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.Also, thanks for all the responses. It's great to see so much involvement from the community. I definitely appreciate it!-AbeOn Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Federico Di Gregorio <fog@dndg.it> wrote:I'd say they are 0. :)On 11/12/2013 03:47, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Abraham Elmahrek <abe@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> > Hey Guys,
>> >
>> > Thanks for the speedy responses. I work on the Hue project at Cloudera. Hue
>> > is an ASLv2 licensed project and according too
>> > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.htm LGPL is excluded from the list of
>> > shippable licenses. The end goal is to be able to ship psycopg2 since it's a
>> > complete client for postgresql that django fully supports.
> Note: the correct url above is <http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html>.
>
> I didn't know the Apache Software Foundation was in open war with the
> GPL. Well, too bad: it seems you chose the wrong license for your
> software.
>
> We could be able to provide a personal, non-transferable license for
> projects whose lawyers insist to require it; however your license
> seems to forbid this option too.
>
> I'm afraid the chance to see psycopg released with a non-LGPL license
> are quite low.Non vi sono certezze, solo opportunità. -- V
federico
--
Federico Di Gregorio federico.digregorio@dndg.it
Di Nunzio & Di Gregorio srl http://dndg.it
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 01:10:54AM -0800, Abraham Elmahrek wrote: > LGPL is a great license. I can understand why LGPL was chosen for > postgresql You don't because it wasn't. Karsten -- GPG key ID E4071346 @ gpg-keyserver.de E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346