Red Hat Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Mohak Vyas <mohakvyas>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>|
|Status:||CLOSED NOTABUG||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||a.badger, ctyler.fedora, fedora-package-review, lemenkov, notting, rfontana, tcallawa|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2009-07-17 14:25:29 EDT||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Bug Depends On:|
Description Mohak Vyas 2008-11-13 21:12:15 EST
Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2008-11-14 08:24:42 EST
Comment 2 Tom "spot" Callaway 2008-11-14 16:56:49 EST
Okay, so let me explain this. The latest version of ExtJS claims to be under GPLv3 with an exception, documented here: http://extjs.com/products/floss-exception.php RH Legal is firm that this exception clause isn't valid. One of the conditions for the exception is: the Derivative Work can reasonably be considered independent and separate work that is intended for use by end-users and not as a library for software development purposes. This doesn't make sense. "Independent and separate" from what? By definition the Derivative Work is formed by combining Ext with some FLOSS work, so it can't be "independent and separate" from those. Moreover, how do you determine whether a Derivative Work is "intended for use by end-users and not as a library for software development purposes"? Well, to some degree you might be able to, but it raises disturbing questions. This sounds very much like a field-of-use limitation. If any such work actually were declared to be "intended for use solely by end-users" surely that would make such a work non-free. (Non-open-source, even.) Does "not as a library for software development purposes" suggest that the Derivative Work must be under terms that prohibit modification? At best this is disturbingly unclear. There are a couple of other points one could make as well. The sum conclusion here is that Fedora and its users are not safe to use the exception clause in ExtJS. However, there is no barrier to using it under GPLv3. This means unfortunately that items like Testopia are right out, due to license incompatibility with GPLv3, but it doesn't prevent ExtJS from inclusion in Fedora on its own merit. BE SURE that anything you use with ExtJS is compatible with GPLv3! All of this text needs to go in a file in the package called "README-Fedora-Licensing", and the spec needs to reflect it like this: # The FLOSS Exception is NOT VALID for this package, see: # README-Fedora-Licensing License: GPLv3 ... Lifting FE-Legal
Comment 3 Jason Tibbitts 2008-12-16 22:13:41 EST
I note there's been no response to these comments from the submitter in over a month. I will close this ticket soon if there is no further action.
Comment 4 Mohak Vyas 2008-12-19 18:10:21 EST
Comment 5 Mohak Vyas 2009-03-27 16:31:18 EDT
Comment 6 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2009-04-09 13:59:13 EDT
Comment 7 Jason Tibbitts 2009-07-10 13:35:13 EDT
It's been three months since Toshio's commentary with no response, and still no package that fixes the licensing issues pointed out nearly eight months ago. I'll close this ticket soon if there's no further progress.
Comment 8 Jason Tibbitts 2009-07-17 14:25:29 EDT
No response; closing.