Login | Register
My pages Projects Community openCollabNet

propel
Reply to message

* = Required fields
* Subject
* Body
Attachments
Send reply to
Topic
Author (directly in email)
Please type the letters in the image above.

Original message

Author hlellelid
Full name Hans Lellelid
Date 2008-04-05 04:42:17 PDT
Message Hi lex -

> I've created Propel packages for Fedora that are in review right now but
> the reviewer is unsure whether the LGPL is valid in Propel's case,
> quote:
>
> "The license is a bit odd. First off, I think it's LGPLv2+, because the
> version is not specified anywhere and the LGPL allows us to choose any
> version at all in that case.
>
> However, if you look upstream, they say that they've relicensed Apache 2
> licenced code to LGPL. I sort of understand what the situation would be if they
> had licensed to GPL, as only GPLv3 is compatible with ASLv2 so the result would
> be GPLv3+. But I really don't know about LGPL."
>
> Can anyone please clarify this? Until then, Propel's inclusion in Fedora remains
> impossible. The full review can be seen at
> https://bugzilla.red​hat.com/show_bug.cgi​?id=266841

Well, I want to say there is precedent for Apache2 software under the
LGPL, but I have no examples springing to mind. I know that I spent
some time reading these licenses and looking at this when we were
choosing licensing originally; that said, I also note that Apache
doesn't claim they are compatible with LGPL. Quite the contrary. Hmmm
:-/ Honestly, licensing questions have rarely come up on this project,
which probably comes as no surprise.

So, my proposal to bring this into licensing compatibility would be to
get contributors to agree to change the license to the PHP license,
which I assume is compatible with Apache2 (though not specifically
mentioned), given that it is based on the Apache license.

I am not completely satisfied with this, as I feel the PHP license is
too free from obligation on derivative works; however, I am not willing
to put PHP sourcecode under the GPL. Unless version 3 is a "non-viral"
license, I think that this is extremely akward in a web development
environment (and code-generation environment).

Assuming that this move would solve the license incompatibility, I will
contact the contributors -- well, probably via this list :) -- to get
buyoff on that change. I expect that most contributors will embrace
this and that most users will welcome the change to a less restrictive
license.

Thanks,
Hans