Spec URL: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/extjs-lgpl.spec
SRPM URL: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/extjs-lgpl-2.0.2-1.src.rpm
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.
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:
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.
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. :/
The GPLv3 relicensed version appears not to contain the horrible nonsense.
Attaching LICENSE.txt from extjs2.1.zip.
Created attachment 311527 [details]
LICENSE.txt from ext-2.1.zip
(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?
Chris, perhaps it would be instructive to read
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450013#c21 and the following comments.