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
