Concerning bundled projects, I really don't know why you have the
impression that Propel and Creole are sub-projects of symfony.
Here are some examples on the symfony website:
There is a "credits" page (available from every web page) with links to
both Creole and Propel:
"
Symfony started as a fork of Mojavi3-DEV, a PHP implementation of the
Model-View-Controller model, in which an object-relationnal mapping
based on Propel was integrated.
"
"
Symfony uses some other PHP open source projects:
* Creole, for database abstraction layer
* Pake, for command-line tool
* Prado, for i18n support
* Spyc, for YAML parsing
"
http://www.symfony-project.com/content/credits.html
In the book, the introduction chapter has a paragraph that says:
"
Symfony uses some code fragments of other open source projects:
* Creole, for the database abstraction layer
* Propel, for the object-relational mapping layer
* Mojavi, for the Model-View-Controller model layer
"
with links to the websites.
http://www.symfony-project.com/book/trunk/introduction
In the book about the model, the first sentence has a link to the Propel
website:
"
Symfony has an object/relational abstraction layer based on the Propel
project.
"
http://www.symfony-project.com/book/trunk/model
Propel and Creole and bundled under the vendor/ symfony directory. All
PHP files have their license headers with the license.
If symfony violates some licences, please contact me directly and I will
act promptly. I have done this before and you know this.
Fabien
David Zülke wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 1, 3:58 pm, Joe Simms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi All
>>
>> I am having lengthy discussions with one of my clients about
>> Licensing, you're all jealous aren't you!!!
>>
>> They are fully aware that i am using symfony, and as it is a small
>> project and we have no formal contract in place, i have agreed to
>> release my code under the MIT license as well, purely for ease and
>> the lack of guarantee / warranty attached.
>>
>> They are however questioning the fact that symfony is combined with
>> LGPL licensed software (Propel, Creole), and that this will affect
>> their ability to sell the business / website in the future, as they
>> have been told by someone "really clever" that open source software
>> is BAD when it comes to this!!!
>>
>> As far as i understand, LGPL allows you to combine it with other
>> compatible licenses (MIT, BSD etc), add your own code and resell and
>> re-license as proprietary software, and even distribute as closed
>> source, however, if you ever make any changes to the core files
>> distributed under LGPL, you must make them available as LGPL.
>> Therefore, i cannot see how this will affect their ability to sell
>> the business / website in the future, just that they will have an
>> obligation to share any modifications made to the LGPL libraries with
>> the open source community. I think it is fair to say that LGPL is
>> more there to protect the open source project from being hijacked by
>> some big multinational and making everyone pay for it, other than
>> that its a pretty flexible license i think, or is it!!!!
>
> They would have to put their modified(!) code under the LGPL if they
> made modifications to propel or creole itself, which is never necessary
> given that both are modular and flexible enough to allow extensions
> without having to patch core files.
>
> Also, LGPL and MIT are not really "compatible" in that you can mix them
> including modifications. You can, however, use the bundled LGPL library
> freely as long as you give proper credit (which symfony does not do,
> see below). This is what the LGPL license refers to as "linking", it
> applies to all PHP code since you include the library to use
> dynamically there. In a nutshell, you can use and sell software that
> uses LGPL libraries as long as you don't modify the library itself,
> which means you can subclass it and modify it's behavior this way. This
> is precisely what symfony does in case of the propel data model
> builders, for instance. Of course, the code produced by the propel
> generator is YOURS and you can do with it whatever you like.
>
>
>> Has anyone had issues like this before, or can someone point to some
>> resource i can show my clients, or anything that will help me bring
>> this damn issue to an end.
>>
>> I think that as symfony bundles these projects by default, it should
>> explain this more clearly, as initially i thought the entire
>> framework was MIT, including third party libs, but obviously that is
>> not the case as Propel and Creole are LGPL. This should be made
>> clearer IMHO. Also if the plugin policy is MIT only, then technically
>> Propel could never be an official plugin, ouch!!!
>
> Yes, I wish that would be made clearer. In fact, I get the impression
> that many users believe Propel and Creole are symfony sub-projects,
> since nowhere does it clearly state the origin of Propel and Creole -
> which is just one of many of symfony's unfortunate license violations
> :(
>
>
>> I think Propel were considering releasing 2.0 as MIT, and i asked the
>> project lead for Doctrine if they would release as MIT, but not too
>> sure they liked the idea as it lacks protection. Having had this
>> conversation with my client, it has become a bit of an issue for me,
>> and i think that as symfony is becoming a player in the framework
>> arena it may be able to request that these libraries be released
>> under MIT for official integration with 1.0, but that maybe pushing
>> our luck and not possible.
>
> That's not going to happen in case of Propel and Creole, sorry.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
>
> >
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"symfony developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-devs?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
