public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedLicense LPGL and commercialization
4+ messages / 4 participants
[nested] [flat]
* License LPGL and commercialization
@ 2021-02-24 15:24 Hunt, Brian C. <[email protected]>
2021-02-24 15:57 ` Re: License LPGL and commercialization Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2021-02-24 16:13 ` Re: License LPGL and commercialization Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Hunt, Brian C. @ 2021-02-24 15:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; psycopg
I have recently been told by outside council (lawyers) that our organization is unable to use LGPL licensed packages in software we plan to sell.
We have already built a web app using Python + Django.
Ticket:
#461 (Support use of pypgsql instead of psycopg) - Django (djangoproject.com)<https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/461;
Seems to suggest the purpose of the LGPL license is not to prevent the intended use we have in mind (selling the web app to be hosted locally at other organizations). Instead it is to prevent other from building off the drivers and then selling those drivers.
Is that the case? Is our intended purpose within the license constraints outlined? Can we receive written confirmation that our intended use won't come back to hurt us and we have permission? Or can we not use your package in this way? We will be compliant with whatever outcome is required. If we need to move away from Django (psycopg2) then we can do that if needed.
Brian Hunt
Data Scientist I, Advanced Analytics
OSF HealthCare System
1306 N. Berkeley Ave. | Peoria, IL | 61603
p 309-308-9657 | f 309-308-0530
www.osfhealthcare.org<http://www.osfhealthcare.org/;
Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/osfhealthcare; | Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/osfhealthcare; | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/osfhealthcare;
"Serving with the Greatest Care and Love"
====================
The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. Access to this message by anyone other than the addressee is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient, or an agent of the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original e-mail, attachment(s), and any copies.
====================
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: License LPGL and commercialization
2021-02-24 15:24 License LPGL and commercialization Hunt, Brian C. <[email protected]>
@ 2021-02-24 15:57 ` Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2021-02-24 16:05 ` Re: License LPGL and commercialization John Abraham <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Daniele Varrazzo @ 2021-02-24 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hunt, Brian C. <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; psycopg
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 at 16:55, Hunt, Brian C.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I have recently been told by outside council (lawyers) that our organization is unable to use LGPL licensed packages in software we plan to sell.
Your lawyer is wrong.
> Seems to suggest the purpose of the LGPL license is not to prevent the intended use we have in mind (selling the web app to be hosted locally at other organizations). Instead it is to prevent other from building off the drivers and then selling those drivers.
Correct. You are not forbidden to use psycopg2 in a closed source program.
-- Daniele
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: License LPGL and commercialization
2021-02-24 15:24 License LPGL and commercialization Hunt, Brian C. <[email protected]>
2021-02-24 15:57 ` Re: License LPGL and commercialization Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
@ 2021-02-24 16:05 ` John Abraham <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: John Abraham @ 2021-02-24 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hunt, Brian C. <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>; psycopg
Yeah I'd tell the lawyers to read the LGPL more carefully. Or maybe get new lawyers who are familiar with the topic.
Here's a useful link in plain language, in case your lawyers are having trouble with legalese :) https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
--
John Abraham
HBA Specto Incorporated
[email protected]
403-232-1060 (unattended during the pandemic)
403-383-8024 (personal cell phone)
> On Feb 24, 2021, at 8:57 AM, Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 at 16:55, Hunt, Brian C.
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I have recently been told by outside council (lawyers) that our organization is unable to use LGPL licensed packages in software we plan to sell.
>
> Your lawyer is wrong.
>
>> Seems to suggest the purpose of the LGPL license is not to prevent the intended use we have in mind (selling the web app to be hosted locally at other organizations). Instead it is to prevent other from building off the drivers and then selling those drivers.
>
> Correct. You are not forbidden to use psycopg2 in a closed source program.
>
> -- Daniele
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: License LPGL and commercialization
2021-02-24 15:24 License LPGL and commercialization Hunt, Brian C. <[email protected]>
@ 2021-02-24 16:13 ` Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Federico Di Gregorio @ 2021-02-24 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: [email protected]; +Cc: Hunt, Brian C. <[email protected]>
On 24/02/21 16:24, Hunt, Brian C. wrote:
> I have recently been told by outside council (lawyers) that our
> organization is unable to use LGPL licensed packages in software we plan
> to sell.
>
> We have already built a web app using Python + Django.
>
> Ticket:
>
> #461 (Support use of pypgsql instead of psycopg) – Django
> (djangoproject.com) <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/461;
>
> Seems to suggest the purpose of the LGPL license is not to prevent the
> intended use we have in mind (selling the web app to be hosted locally
> at other organizations). Instead it is to prevent other from building
> off the drivers and then selling those drivers.
>
> Is that the case? Is our intended purpose within the license constraints
> outlined? Can we receive written confirmation that our intended use
> won’t come back to hurt us and we have permission? Or can we not use
> your package in this way? We will be compliant with whatever outcome is
> required. If we need to move away from Django (psycopg2) then we can do
> that if needed.
Dear Brian,
you can use psycopg2 in a proprietary, closed-source application as long
as you don't modify psycopg2 itself and allow your users to replace the
current version of the psycopg2 module with a new one (this is usually
not a problem, unless you want to pack everything in a single
executable). There is the misconception that the LGPL will "contaminate"
Python, then Django and from there your application but this is not the
case: accessing psycopg2 API via Python from a proprietary module is
perfectly fine - we don't consider it "linking".
federico
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-02-24 16:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-02-24 15:24 License LPGL and commercialization Hunt, Brian C. <[email protected]>
2021-02-24 15:57 ` Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2021-02-24 16:05 ` John Abraham <[email protected]>
2021-02-24 16:13 ` Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox