GPL vs. LGPL?

[alevy]

@nd2s asked whether we'd change the license to LGPL instead of GPL as GPL is cumbersome to use in some settings, and all the simple-* code is LGPL anyway: alevy/simple.cx#1

[dterei]

Sounds reasonable to me.

[ret]

Are you at liberty to consider BSD3, or MIT (I understand there are many, valid reasons to choose, don't get me wrong, please)? It would be very much in-line with other packages that simple (and postgresql-orm) depend on: see: http://packdeps.haskellers.com/licenses/simple-postgresql-orm for a handy summary of the overall license set.

[nd2s]

Follow-up almost two years later: @ret is correct, If you want the simple* and postgres libraries to be really free the code should be BSD{2,3}/MIT/Apache licensed. LGPL is a huge problem when linking statically.

[saurabhnanda]

Chiming in for BSD/MIT. If you don't have strong philosophical reasons for using GPL3, may I request you to use a more permissive license. As an industrial user evaluating pg-orm, I'm not sure what GPL3 would do to my SaaS app.

[davidfetter]

Another chime for the liberal licenses, of which MIT is the simplest. Licenses which aren't liberal can and do cause Conversations With Legal™ which can get and do get drawn out to the point where most people just give up.