|Summary:||Review Request: extjs-lgpl - Last version of ExtJS released under the LGPL v3 license|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Dave Malcolm <dmalcolm>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>|
|Status:||CLOSED CANTFIX||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||fedora-package-review, jonstanley, notting, tcallawa|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2008-07-08 21:23:24 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
|Bug Depends On:|
Description Dave Malcolm 2008-07-08 18:53:00 UTC
Comment 1 Dave Malcolm 2008-07-08 18:54:28 UTC
Created attachment 311307 [details] LICENSE.txt from zipfile LICENSE.txt taken from http://extjs.com/deploy/ext-2.0.2.zip which has this m5dsum: afb2619b828f8b6d947aff3c02340159 ext-2.0.2.zip
Comment 2 Ville Skyttä 2008-07-08 21:12:40 UTC
FWIW, all of the terms in the "License of CSS and Graphics ("Assets")" (no derived works, no unbundled use) and "Open Source License" chapters (additional commercial use restrictions on top of the LGPL), smell pretty much non-free to me.
Comment 3 Tom "spot" Callaway 2008-07-08 21:23:24 UTC
So, I looked into this, and I agree with Ville. It doesn't appear that the ExtJS code was ever just under the LGPL, just this LGPL+horrible nonsense license. I think this is no-go for Fedora. :/
Comment 4 Chris Ball 2008-07-11 00:32:29 UTC
The GPLv3 relicensed version appears not to contain the horrible nonsense. Attaching LICENSE.txt from extjs2.1.zip.
Comment 5 Chris Ball 2008-07-11 00:33:23 UTC
Created attachment 311527 [details] LICENSE.txt from ext-2.1.zip
Comment 6 Chris Ball 2008-07-11 00:47:08 UTC
(In reply to comment #0) > It was recently relicensed from LGPLv3 to GPLv3. This is a packaging in rpm form of a zip file from extjs.com that I believe to be the last version of extjs licensed under the LGPL. Is there a reason to prefer the LGPL-licensed versions, given comment #4?
Comment 7 Jason Tibbitts 2008-07-11 02:27:16 UTC
Chris, perhaps it would be instructive to read https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450013#c21 and the following comments.