3 ms·

Kudos for a very well done README (and it's not just cribbed from the original project, it explains the new stuff very well and tells what the project is, and g

by natch 12y ago

Kudos for a very well done README (and it's not just cribbed from the original project, it explains the new stuff very well and tells what the project is, and gives credit back). So many projects neglect the README. One question - is it OK to put an MIT license on something that is based on LGPL code? I don't know enough about how the LGPL works (I do know it is less "infective" than plain GPL). Well two questions: python2, or python3?

thampiman 12y ago
Thanks for that comment! Good question regarding the license. I'm not too sure about that. I'd appreciate it if someone could shed some light on it. Regarding the version, I've only tested it on python2. I should add that in the README. Thanks!
- stared 12y ago
  As of now, for Python 3 it does not work, but it seams that fixes are not hard: https://github.com/thampiman/reverse-geocoder/issues/2 https://github.com/thampiman/reverse-geocoder/issues/2
  - thampiman 12y ago
    UPDATE: I've just released v1.2 which supports Python 3. For details: https://github.com/thampiman/reverse-geocoder https://github.com/thampiman/reverse-geocoder
    - natch 12y ago
      Sweet!
- belorn 12y ago
  If its based on LGPL code, then any original code need to retain it's license. Beyond that, everything regarding licenses look good if you ask me. MIT is both compatible if you modify the LGPL code or if you link with it, so one can use either of the two licenses.
- rbp 12y ago
  hi, I am the author of the original library, which uses the LGPL license. My reason for using LGPL was so people would be obligated to share their modifications, so I would expect this is not compatible with MIT.