commercial license availability

Hi,

Are there any commercial license that is sold for psycopg driver. LGPL V3
seems very restrictive.

Kindly let me know ASAP.

Thanks,
Vishnu

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Vishnu VV <movievishnu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Are there any commercial license that is sold for psycopg driver. LGPL V3
> seems very restrictive.

Why it is restrictive? You don't have to open source your product in
order to just use psycopg2. If you instead improve the driver we want
your improvements back. Is that restrictive?

-- Daniele

Hi Danielle,

The concern is with LGPL v3 in a closed appliance in the consumer space;
and that we would have to allow others to patch the product with an updated
version of the library. We have no issue releasing any improvements made
to the driver back to the community, the concern is if we would end up
exposing other commercial code that would be required to patch the driver
in our product.

We have no problem with LGPL v2 or a commercial license that required us to
release back changes we make to the driver itself. Is that a possibility?

If we can call you or your team regarding a commercial license, that should
help us use psycopg and postgresql.

Thanks,
Vishnu
5123786441

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Daniele Varrazzo <
daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Vishnu VV <movievishnu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Are there any commercial license that is sold for psycopg driver. LGPL V3
> > seems very restrictive.
>
> Why it is restrictive? You don't have to open source your product in
> order to just use psycopg2. If you instead improve the driver we want
> your improvements back. Is that restrictive?
>
>
> -- Daniele
>

On Friday 14 September 2012, Vishnu VV wrote:
> Hi Danielle,
>
> The concern is with LGPL v3 in a closed appliance in the consumer space;
> and that we would have to allow others to patch the product with an updated
> version of the library. We have no issue releasing any improvements made
> to the driver back to the community, the concern is if we would end up
> exposing other commercial code that would be required to patch the driver
> in our product.
>

FUD.

LGPLv[2|3] won't affect your software using this library in any way. It doesn't
even mean that the "source code" has to come from the customer's production
machine. But only requires that you disclose any code you hacked *inside*
psycopg2, for your product.

There is, sure, some rules of GPL, mainly aimed to secure the fair play
between the community, you, and your customers:
- you have to give back any improvements on the library
- if you place locks, restrictions or backdoors into psycopg2, you have to
disclose them too!
- you cannot claim to your customer that you built all this by yourself, but
need to admit that you used open-source components.

So, you are not happy with these rules?
Without them, we wouldn't have had all this wealth and quality of OSS.

Written on 15th Sep, http://www.softwarefreedomday.org/

--
Say NO to spam and viruses. Stop using Microsoft Windows!

Hi,
No one needs to know anything about your product or what you intend to
do with it. All you need to know is that if you choose to use other
software components in your product, open source or closed source, you
must adhere to the license they are released under.

http://initd.org/psycopg/license/

It appears to be a mystery that what you intend to do with psycopg2 is
not compatible with this license and I can't see why.

All the best.

Julian

On 15/09/12 03:55, Vishnu VV wrote:
> Hi Danielle,
>
> The concern is with LGPL v3 in a closed appliance in the consumer
> space; and that we would have to allow others to patch the product
> with an updated version of the library. We have no issue releasing
> any improvements made to the driver back to the community, the concern
> is if we would end up exposing other commercial code that would be
> required to patch the driver in our product.
>
> We have no problem with LGPL v2 or a commercial license that required
> us to release back changes we make to the driver itself. Is that a
> possibility?
>
> If we can call you or your team regarding a commercial license, that
> should help us use psycopg and postgresql.
>
> Thanks,
> Vishnu
> 5123786441
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Daniele Varrazzo
> <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Vishnu VV <movievishnu(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:movievishnu(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Are there any commercial license that is sold for psycopg
> driver. LGPL V3
> > seems very restrictive.
>
> Why it is restrictive? You don't have to open source your product in
> order to just use psycopg2. If you instead improve the driver we want
> your improvements back. Is that restrictive?
>
>
> -- Daniele
>
>

On 14/09/2012 19:55, Vishnu VV wrote:
>
> The concern is with LGPL v3 in a closed appliance in the consumer space;
> and that we would have to allow others to patch the product with an
> updated version of the library. We have no issue releasing any
> improvements made to the driver back to the community, the concern is if
> we would end up exposing other commercial code that would be required to
> patch the driver in our product.
>
> We have no problem with LGPL v2 or a commercial license that required us
> to release back changes we make to the driver itself. Is that a
> possibility?

psycopg2 is a Python _module_ so you'll never end up linking it
statically with your application. The requirements of the LGPL3 are
_already_ taken care of by simply distributing psycopg2 as a module
together with your application. If you don't change psycopg2 code you
don't have any other burden and nothing in the LGPL3 says you should
expose your code in this case.

federico

--
Federico Di Gregorio federico(dot)digregorio(at)dndg(dot)it
Studio Associato Di Nunzio e Di Gregorio http://dndg.it
When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they
means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth.
-- Granny Weatherwax