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 05:27:28 PDT
Message Alexander Kahl wrote:
> 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

One clarification -- I'm quite certain that the source code for Torque
that this was based on would have been the Apache 1 license. It looks
like the Apache2 license was only approved in 2004, whereas this
development was happening in 2002, 2003. I don't know that this has any
effect on the question (I'm reading that original license now), but the
Propel license wiki page is wrong to reference Apache2 as the original
source license.

Hans