Login | Register
My pages Projects Community openCollabNet

Discussions > dev > Propel Licensing Clarification

propel
Discussion topic

Back to topic list

Propel Licensing Clarification

Reply

Author Alexander Kahl <akahl at iconmobile dot com>
Full name Alexander Kahl <akahl at iconmobile dot com>
Date 2008-04-05 03:21:53 PDT
Message 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

-lex
Attachments

« Previous message in topic | 1 of 17 | Next message in topic »

Messages

Show all messages in topic

Propel Licensing Clarification Alexander Kahl <akahl at iconmobile dot com> Alexander Kahl <akahl at iconmobile dot com> 2008-04-05 03:21:53 PDT
     Re: [propel-dev] Propel Licensing Clarification hlellelid Hans Lellelid 2008-04-05 04:42:17 PDT
         Re: [propel-dev] Propel Licensing Clarification Alexander Kahl <akahl at iconmobile dot com> Alexander Kahl <akahl at iconmobile dot com> 2008-04-07 01:14:11 PDT
             Re: [propel-dev] Propel Licensing Clarification hlellelid Hans Lellelid 2008-04-07 03:38:37 PDT
                 Re: [propel-dev] Propel Licensing Clarification Alexander Kahl <akahl at iconmobile dot com> Alexander Kahl <akahl at iconmobile dot com> 2008-04-07 05:37:56 PDT
                     Re: [propel-dev] Propel Licensing Clarification hlellelid Hans Lellelid 2008-04-07 05:54:17 PDT
                         Re: [propel-dev] Propel Licensing Clarification =?ISO-8859-1?Q?David_Z=FClke?= <dz at bitxtender dot com> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?David_Z=FClke?= <dz at bitxtender dot com> 2008-04-11 04:58:49 PDT
                             Re: [propel-dev] Propel Licensing Clarification hlellelid Hans Lellelid 2008-04-11 05:07:31 PDT
                                 Re: [propel-dev] Propel Licensing Clarification =?ISO-8859-1?Q?David_Z=FClke?= <dz at bitxtender dot com> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?David_Z=FClke?= <dz at bitxtender dot com> 2008-04-12 12:12:02 PDT
                                 Re: [propel-dev] Propel Licensing Clarification Alexander Kahl <akahl at iconmobile dot com> Alexander Kahl <akahl at iconmobile dot com> 2008-04-21 02:49:52 PDT
                                     Re: [propel-dev] Propel Licensing Clarification hlellelid Hans Lellelid 2008-04-21 04:01:47 PDT
                                         Re: [propel-dev] Propel Licensing Clarification Alexander Kahl <akahl at iconmobile dot com> Alexander Kahl <akahl at iconmobile dot com> 2008-04-21 04:37:29 PDT
                                             Re: [propel-dev] Propel Licensing Clarification hlellelid Hans Lellelid 2008-04-21 04:39:57 PDT
                                                 Re: [propel-dev] Propel Licensing Clarification Alexander Kahl <akahl at iconmobile dot com> Alexander Kahl <akahl at iconmobile dot com> 2008-04-21 04:50:01 PDT
                                                     Re: [propel-dev] Propel Licensing Clarification hlellelid Hans Lellelid 2008-04-21 04:51:42 PDT
                                             Re: [propel-dev] Propel Licensing Clarification =?ISO-8859-1?Q?David_Z=FClke?= <dz at bitxtender dot com> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?David_Z=FClke?= <dz at bitxtender dot com> 2008-04-24 17:09:12 PDT
     Re: [propel-dev] Propel Licensing Clarification hlellelid Hans Lellelid 2008-04-05 05:27:28 PDT
Messages per page: