Question about txzookeeper license

[Kapil Thangavelu]

Excerpts from Clint Byrum's message of Sun Dec 11 11:04:07 -0500 2011:
> 
> If you read COPYING.LESSER, it modifies COPYING to allow linking. This
> is the standard way of distributing the LGPL. Pypi is wrong, and should
> be fixed... not sure who controls the pypi distribution channel.. Kapil?

pypi metadata now reflects LGPL.

> 
> To be clear, every file in the source tree explicitly references LGPLv3
> or later, except mocker.py which is used in the test suite only and is
> included under a BSD license.
> 

indeed, this is a standard usage of mocker, via embedding.

> > As a subsidiary question, is there a thinking of where will
> > txzookeeper be maintained, whether it will find its place eventually
> > in Apache's zookeeper source tree for example, or will it stay on
> > Launchpad.
> > 
> 
> txzookeeper will definitely be maintained on Launchpad for the forseeable
> future. I don't know that it would really be best served inside ZK's
> source tree, and its LGPLv3 license might even give pause to the ASF,
> I don't know how they feel about non apache licensed code in ASF projects.

We'd relicense if the project is donated to the zk project (zk/contrib).

But we're not ready to do that yet. Trying to push the project into zk 
upstream is still something of interest to me, but its something that isn't of 
interest till the code is stable for a while. We've added various features to 
deal with session expiration, and transient connection errors over the last few 
months, some under juju schedule/release deadlines.

Its much easier for us to cut releases and deal with code modifications in its 
current location, vs. attaching patches to bugs, doing comunication 
roundtrips, patching builds, while waiting on an upstream integration 
and release. That said upstream is responsive and active, but for now i see the 
juju team as the upstream continuing to be paramount.

cheers,

Kapil