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