> Well, all else being equal we'd certainly prefer a library that was<br />> licensed more like the core
Postgresdatabase. However, we don't have<br />> infinite resources, and an LGPL license is not a showstopper (at
least<br/>> not to the people who seem to be willing to work on this problem).<br />> The attractiveness of the
licensehas to be balanced against how much<br />> work we'd have to put in and how long it will take to get
results.<br/>> <br />> Not being a python user myself, I wasn't paying all that close attention<br />> to the
discussion,but that's my sense of how the decision went.<br />> <br />> If you feel that a BSD/MIT license is a
must-havefor your purposes,<br />> you're certainly free to push development of one of the other driver<br />>
projectsinstead, and to try to organize some other people to help.<br />> I don't believe anyone is trying to funnel
alldevelopment effort into<br />> psycopg2.<br />Thanks for the reply.<br /><br />I guess that's good advice; I
supposeI should just do that and talk to some of the teams about it. It would probably help a lot to focus on just one
implementationinstead of several, even if it's not the same one as what the PostgreSQL team works on. :)<br /><br /><hr
/>Hotmail:Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. <a
href="http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/"target="_new">Sign up now.</a>