> I fear that there is a rule that everything in the Zope repositories
> should be ZPL -- to have a uniform license for all components from
> these repositories.
>
> Of course, if your DCO2 is not in the Zope repositories,
> you should be able to include MIT licensed code in a ZPL licensed
> versi
Maciej Wisniowski wrote at 2006-11-22 15:12 +0100:
> ...
>I'm especially interested in licensing.
>SQLAlchemy is on MIT license, so I think if it will be
>possible to use SQLAlchemy pool implementation then
>then this DCOracle2 version may be ZPL. Am I right?
I fear that there is a rule that every
> Eek! ZpsycopgDA is GPL'd! Does that mean you've put your version of
> DCOracle under GPL?
>
> But that aside I am not sure it is the best implementation of
> connection pooling out there.
I don't want to reinvent the whell and create own
pool management so I searched a bit and found
something in
> Being the copyright holder for both I can choose any combination of
> licenses and by saying that ZPsycopgDA is (also) ZPL even if it calls
> psycopg that is GPL-only I suppose I am making a clear statement about
> what you can or can't do.
>
Thank you. Now it is absolutely clear for me.
> Pl
Il giorno mer, 22/11/2006 alle 07.34 +0100, Maciej Wisniowski ha
scritto:
> > Yes. ZPsycopgDA can be under the ZPL because the ZPL is GPL-compatible.
> > But if you directly include GPL'ed code you must use GPL.
> >
> OK. Thanks for the answer. One more question.
> If I'll create application usi
