PDA

View Full Version : GPL License V3 Clarification



chicagoarchitect
23 Apr 2008, 3:48 AM
Per my understanding, I do not have to publish any code to the public if I use the software under the GPL License and not modify it. Basically, If I am just using the libraries, I should not have any problem. Can ExtJS please clarify this. Also, here is what I have directly from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html:

Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.


Thanks

esoteric
23 Apr 2008, 4:12 AM
Why open a new thread? Please go see the License Change thread. (Use the search feature)

Can a moderator please merge or delete this.

sheesh-kebab
23 Apr 2008, 4:54 AM
it looks like commercial license is also not very commercial friendly...

"a. Developer License:

Subject to the payment of the fee required for a Commercial Developer License and subject
to the terms and conditions of this License Agreement, We grant to You a revocable, non-
transferable and non-exclusive license (i)"hmm... answers, EXT, answers...

ushkinaz
23 Apr 2008, 4:56 AM
see here
http://extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33334

vmorale4
23 Apr 2008, 4:56 AM
Why open a new thread? Please go see the License Change thread. (Use the search feature)

That thread has degenerated into great big fight. He has an honest question, and between all the rambling over there I don't think his question would get answered ...

chicagoarchitect
23 Apr 2008, 5:06 AM
vmorale84, thanks :). That was my exact reason for this thread. Moreover, I'm a mygwt user, so I felt this was a more appropriate section of the forum for me. I don't want this thread to turn into a philosophical debate contest. I just want a clarification of use vs modification.

jack.slocum
23 Apr 2008, 5:13 AM
it looks like commercial license is also not very commercial friendly...

"a. Developer License:

Subject to the payment of the fee required for a Commercial Developer License and subject
to the terms and conditions of this License Agreement, We grant to You a revocable, non-
transferable and non-exclusive license (i)"hmm... answers, EXT, answers...

sheesh-kebab, please see my reply in this thread about the "revocable" clause.

http://extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?p=157744#post157744

Before posting advice to people, you really should be sure you know what you are talking about. Thanks.


For the original poster, I don't think this a question a developer should be answering, but instead an attorney. However, my two cents on the GPL is that if you use Ext GWT to develop your application under GPL, you must distribute your application under GPL. Again, this is just my two cents.

chicagoarchitect
23 Apr 2008, 5:30 AM
Jack,

Thanks for responding. I love your work, but with all due respect, shouldn't the ExtJS understand the license(s) it is binding it's software to? If the only response is that I should consult an attorney, then ExtJS has not understood the implications of going from LGPL to GPL.

hucmuc
23 Apr 2008, 6:30 AM
Jack,

Thanks for responding. I love your work, but with all due respect, shouldn't the ExtJS understand the license(s) it is binding it's software to? If the only response is that I should consult an attorney, then ExtJS has not understood the implications of going from LGPL to GPL.

Totally agree. I've seen this happen so many times. Bottom line: they want to be paid and that's okay. Making it GPL is basically making it closed software. No one and I mean no one that works for a company uses GPL software per se. You got to pay for it. The standard response "consult your attorney" gives it away.

I think a lot of people are pissed because they have contributed back into the software. I bet you that extjs in the end will grant these people exceptions and basically make new customers pay. This is fine.

The extjs people are doing a terrible job of explaining or transitioning existing customers. Companies think that GPL is opensource friendly and is a good "marketing" idea. God, everyone knows that GPL is bad.

jack.slocum
23 Apr 2008, 7:18 AM
Making it GPL is basically making it closed software.

That is so far from the truth. It makes it open source for open source. The GPL is the only open source license that makes sure everything done with it is also open source. If anything, it is the epitomy of open source and proliferates additional open source works.


If the only response is that I should consult an attorney, then ExtJS has not understood the implications of going from LGPL to GPL.

If we were to reply to these type of questions every time they were asked, we would need a full time team of 10s lawyers simply to answer them. I personally get more than I can count PER DAY. There is no way I (or anyone else at Ext JS) can analyse everyones usage and provide accurate information regarding their usage. In the case of Ext JS, there are so many different ways to use/integrate into an application and all have different licensing implications.

hucmuc
23 Apr 2008, 9:11 AM
That is so far from the truth. It makes it open source for open source. The GPL is the only open source license that makes sure everything done with it is also open source. If anything, it is the epitomy of open source and proliferates additional open source works.


I was being facetious. Sorry about that. You won't convince people though. GPL == viral especially for libraries.

Not everyone have attorneys so you have to boil it down simply for standard approaches.

Just have an FAQ on it and be done with it!

cdasher
23 Apr 2008, 1:17 PM
As I read it (and interprete) the license is for development use and not for the actual runtime. So my company has to pay like 300 bucks for me as a developer to use the gxt widgets in our products. we can (as I read the license) deploy our product on as many servers (actually I think the gxt license says unlimited) as many times as we want to without any royalties. At 300 bucks (no brainer) buy the license (or 100) and move on. In fact if you work for a company that has $300 to spend on getting a product out, then becuase of the commercial license, you can assure your upper management that you will not have to release your source when you deploy your product.

hucmuc
23 Apr 2008, 1:52 PM
As I read it (and interprete) the license is for development use and not for the actual runtime. So my company has to pay like 300 bucks for me as a developer to use the gxt widgets in our products. we can (as I read the license) deploy our product on as many servers (actually I think the gxt license says unlimited) as many times as we want to without any royalties. At 300 bucks (no brainer) buy the license (or 100) and move on. In fact if you work for a company that has $300 to spend on getting a product out, then becuase of the commercial license, you can assure your upper management that you will not have to release your source when you deploy your product.

My interpretation as well. I don't understand why people are really upset. They shouldn't. It doesn't mean they can't use the library. It just means they have to pay for developers license. They want to keep paying nothing. Well it's over. move on.

However, I don't like extjs spin that they did this for open source reason because everyone knows this is BS. Makes them look bad and ignorant.

You GPL applications. You don't GPL libraries.
D

dantheman
23 Apr 2008, 2:04 PM
No one and I mean no one that works for a company uses GPL software per se.Unfathomable ignorance.

Every company on wall street uses GPL software.

Almost certainly, every company you've worked for
(if it had an "IT" department), uses GPL software . . .

The limb you wish to saw off is the one you're standing on...
--dan

hucmuc
23 Apr 2008, 5:15 PM
Unfathomable ignorance.

Every company on wall street uses GPL software.

Almost certainly, every company you've worked for
(if it had an "IT" department), uses GPL software . . .

The limb you wish to saw off is the one you're standing on...
--dan


Yes, I was wrong to say the above. I should have said, No company uses GPLed library within their code.

joeri
24 Apr 2008, 1:39 AM
Yes, I was wrong to say the above. I should have said, No company uses GPLed library within their code.

Which is entirely the point. Ext, as a business, can only survive if companies that use it pay for it. But Ext, as a project, also attempts to provide a benefit to the open source community. If Ext is LGPL or BSD licensed, no one will need to buy it (other than to get support). It really makes a lot of sense to have the dual GPL / Commercial licensing model.

The previous LGPL license wasn't really valid imho. The license change massively simplifies things, and makes it very clear now where you stand. Either you go fully GPL, for your whole project, or you buy a commercial license. You don't need a lawyer to understand that.