License to MIT?

[tony]

Hi!

Is it possible to switch the license on this to MIT/BSD/etc. by any chance?

I'd like to use this package, but would rather write my own than introduce
complications from LGPL / python. The reason why is the license isn't
written with scripting languages in mind. The other reason is as it's a django package I think
it makes more sense to keep it under the same license django uses.

Similar issue where I brought up specifics I dealt with Python / LGPL: pytest-dev/pytest-mock#45

P.S. I'm not against (L)GPL in any way, there are just developers that can't
pull in projects that have licenses with viral clauses.

[gitaarik]

Hey, I'll think about it this week

…

On 4/5/19 7:39 PM, Tony Narlock wrote: Hi! Is it possible to switch the license on this to MIT/BSD/etc. by any chance? I'd like to use this package, but would rather write my own than introduce complications from LGPL / python. The reason why is the license isn't written with scripting languages in mind. The other reason is as it's a django package I think it makes more sense to keep it under the same license django uses. Similar issue where I brought up specifics I dealt with Python / LGPL: pytest-dev/pytest-mock#45 <pytest-dev/pytest-mock#45> P.S. I'm not against (L)GPL in any way, there are just developers that can't pull in projects that have licenses with viral clauses. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#7>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACWxnhtwie3vP1XgnHtO-0i06UVSOORZks5vd4pfgaJpZM4cfacI>.

[tony]

At this point I've already whipped something up internally that does what this project does. So my particular case isn't as strong as when I originally posted.

But since this is a Django package, if it's part of that ecosystem, I think whatever license is typical there is probably a better fit?