I hope people don't mind my asking about this on the list... as I hinted at before, I don't really follow the
developmentof PostgreSQL, I was just interested in the Python driver project that I heard about.<br /><br />Anyways, as
Iunderstand it, the current goal is to use psycopg and get it changed to LGPL (assuming all the contributors of psycopg
agreeand confirm they did not use GPL code from any other location). Is this correct?<br /><br /><br />When I first
heardabout the endeavor, I thought the goal was to take one or several of the non-copyleft projects, which were rather
unfocused,and work with those teams to produce a really good implementation for Python. However, as I understand it
(basedon what Greg told me) the license is not really an issue as long as it is not GPL; instead, the PostgreSQL team
wouldmostly prefer something that is nearly done, so as to have to do much more work. Is this a correct assessment?<br
/><br/><br />Based on that, I guess my question is what would it have taken to have picked one of BSD/MIT projects and
workingwith those people instead? In other words, what key things affected the decision for psycopg? What areas is it
sofar ahead in or that would have just been too much work to fix in the other implementations?<br /><br /><br
/>Anyways,I hope this message doesn't come across as bad form. It's unfortunate for me that there was not a good
enoughBSD/MIT project; but I can live without right? :) Still, I just thought I might ask and find out a little more
aboutwhat the team was looking for in a PostgreSQL implementation, and maybe do a little research myself (to see if
anythingwas missed).<br /><br /><hr />Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. <a
href="http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/"target="_new">Get it now.</a>