Login | Register
My pages Projects Community openCollabNet

Reply to message

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

Original message

Author =?ISO-8859-1?Q?David_Z=FClke?= <dz@bitxtender.com>
Full name =?ISO-8859-1?Q?David_Z=FClke?= <dz@bitxtender.com>
Date 2008-04-12 12:12:02 PDT
Message I _believe_ that if no version is stated, licensees are entitled to
pick the version they prefer. At least that's what the LGPL itself
says. Obviously, you need to bundle some version of the license
_text_. Now consider the simple loophole where you fork Propel into
itself and relicense it as LGPLv3... you could do that. Changing the
license is just the same thing, and doesn't require any past
contributor's consent. So we should be safe.


Am 11.04.2008 um 14:07 schrieb Hans Lellelid:
> David Z├╝lke wrote:
>> Am 07.04.2008 um 14:54 schrieb Hans Lellelid:
>>> Hi Lex -
>>> Alexander Kahl wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 06:38 -0400, Hans Lellelid wrote:
>>>>> Oh ... yes, of course. I didn't realize that v3 was compatible
>>>>> w/ Apache 2. I didn't see it on the page listing acceptable
>>>>> licenses. Do you have a link for that?
>>>> While I have no source explicitly listing LGPLv3 as compatible to
>>>> Apache-2, compatibility can be logically concluded by looking at
>>>> the
>>>> additions of the LGPLv3 to the GPLv3 [1] and realizing there are no
>>>> changes to the "patent termination and indemnification
>>>> provisions" [2]
>>>> that cause the GPLv2 incompatibility but are present in the GPLv3.
>>>> [1] http://www.gnu.org/l​icenses/lgpl.html
>>>> [2] http://www.apache.or​g/licenses/GPL-compa​tibility.html
>>>>> If that's the case, then this is easy. We'll just update to v3,
>>>>> make that explicit in the headers and move along... :)
>>>> I really hope the LGPLv3 suffices to ensure this! :)
>>> Yes, after reading some more docs & discussion, it does indeed
>>> look like these should be compatible.
>>> Assuming that there's no objection (I don't expect any), we will
>>> switch to using the LGPLv3.
>> Fine with me. Can we do that? Did we state an LGPL version before?
>> If yes, I assume we'd actually need written permission of each
>> contributor to relicense his contribution. Meh.
> I'm not entirely sure... We didn't state a version before (the
> headers just say LGPL); however, we did include version 2.1 (since
> that was originally the most recent version) in the distros.
> I'm gong to chat about this with a lawyer next week and will
> communicate whatever I learn there.
> Hans
> --------------------​--------------------​--------------------​---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@prop​el.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help at propel dot tigris dot org