Thanks for the clarification on the licensing for psycopg. If you can give some quick high-level steps on how to submit a patch, I can do that for the files mentioned below.
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Chris Mildebrandt <chris@woodenrhino.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I just downloaded the source for 2.5.3 > (http://initd.org/psycopg/tarballs/PSYCOPG-2-5/psycopg2-2.5.3.tar.gz) and > looked through the sources. The following files seem to be under a GPL > license: > > examples/copy_from.py > examples/lobject.py > examples/copy_to.py > scripts/buildtypes.py > scripts/make_errorcodes.py > scripts/refcounter.py
It is an oversight: psycopg license was changed to LGPL about 4 years ago. Also note that these scripts are only used to develop/test psycopg and not to build/use it: they are not installed in a system (where e.g. "python setup.py install" is performed).
> And there's a copy of the GNU GPL: > doc/COPYING
This file was dropped from the repos (https://github.com/psycopg/psycopg2/commit/04c09b7b), but apparently only from the master branch: it still appears in the maint_2_5 branch (probably because shortly after releasing 2.5 I started clearing up the package content for the future 2.6 release). It is an oversight too: only COPYING.LESSER applies.
> We're very sensitive to GPL code here and would appreciate some > clarification about these files. Was this just an oversight? And is there a > plan to provide a source release without GPL code in the package?
Yes, they are an incomplete rewording from the GPL to LGPL switch: these files probably got less attention for the above reason: if you compile psycopg with "python setup.py build" they don't end up in the resulting package. I think we can adjust the wording in the next dot release no problem. If you provide a patch changing the file headers it would be helpful too.