Please go back to LGPL

[willgillen]

We are finding that too many third party extensions are claiming that they are NOT FLOSS compatible because they merely extend or duplicate some core Ext functionality. This is absurd. ExtJS was a much, much better and more widely used framework before the move from LGPL to GPL.

I've been reading this new Guide to GPL compatibility from the Software Freedom Law Center that was recently published, and the consequences of using GPL in your commercial products (even if you have a commercial ExtJS license like we do), could be very very devastating down the road financially if you inadverdently incorporate one (just one) minor GPL'd user extension to ExtJS:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html

Example: one of your developers downloads and incorporates the "WidgetX.ux" (just an example) extension. Let's say this extension is GPL because it has one line of code from the ExtJS base in it. Your company has several commercial licenses so that you don't have to distribute your source code with your commercial application. You start selling your application and over the next 2 years you get 5,000 customers. Then, suddenly, the developer of "WidgetX.ux" contacts you and says "Hey, your application uses my GPL extension. You MUST provide an offer for source code, or cease and desist on distributing YOUR application." Yes, that can most definitely happen.

What say the community about this? I thought that ExtJS was actually TRYING to get commercial use out of the framework??? Even with the FLOSS exceptions, it makes it so very difficult to decide whether or not to use ExtJS.

Now, I know that many Ext community members have said, and will say that each person should contact a lawyer about their individual needs; but COME ON! The lawyer is going to say the same thing: "IT IS RISKY TO USE THIS GPL IN YOUR COMMERCIAL PRODUCT". Even if you do have a "commercial license".

What say the community?
Why doesn't ExtJS just go back to LGPL?
Can ExtJS go back to LGPL?
Would developers of extensions come back if ExtJS went back to LGPL?

[MeDavid]

This is absurd. ExtJS was a much, much better and more widely used framework before the move from LGPL to GPL

I agree with you on this one. I'm a paying customer for extjs. After the move to GPL I was scared that it would break up the community and I'm afraid it did.

[Yoris]

what part of Ext JS Forums (http://extjs.com/forum/index.php) > Ext JS Community Forums (2.0) (http://extjs.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=19) > Ext: User Extensions and Plugins (http://extjs.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=21)is not clear?

[evant]

Agreed with above, moving to GD.

[jerrybrown5]

--don't lawyers need to feed their families as well? :-?

[evanc]

I could be wrong but if you just load an extension as a library it doesn't have any affect on your license status whatsoever.

Has there actually been a legal issue brought to court or threatened or are you just speculating?

edit: Have you ever posted about anything other than licensing? Maybe instead of whining about the licensing you should just replicate the functionality of the extensions you need yourself.

Furthermore you keep saying that Ext has lost developers and users- is this true or are you just making things up?

[willgillen]

edit: Have you ever posted about anything other than licensing? Maybe instead of whining about the licensing you should just replicate the functionality of the extensions you need yourself.


Evanc, Grow up. Of course I've posted about more than licensing, but more about licensing to date. Just because you go through and read my last 5 posts and see only licensing questions, don't assume that is all I'm interested in. At the moment, licensing is a huge deal for my project. I have posted several fixes and examples, and yes, I was considering just replicating the functionaly of the extension I need myself, but that kind of defeats the purpose of having a community. I do try to give back to the community when I find or develop something useful.

Now, seriously, if you were concerned about licensing and you posted your questions to the community, I wouldn't say you were whining, so again, grow up, man.

;)

-- W.G.

[mjlecomte]

Have you read on Jack's blog why they chose the license they did? If you understand that then maybe you will be able to propose something more acceptable?

Joe wants A.
Joe wants A because of U, V, X.

Bob wants B.
Bob wants B because of X, Y, Z.

In the above example Bob doesn't appear to recognize why Joe wanted A.

There already was a long thread where Jack solicited the community about how to handle extensions, et al and there was an open discussion period. I'm not sure what a new thread is accomplishing other than to rehash what was said before. Maybe you are attempting to present some new information or perspective here, but as a somewhat ignorant/casual observer I'm not seeing it (I'm not a lawyer and haven't studied all the licensing fine print).

[evanc]

Now, seriously, if you were concerned about licensing and you posted your questions to the community, I wouldn't say you were whining, so again, grow up, man.

Well that's a stupid thing to say.

Of course you wouldn't think I was whining if I was complaining about licensing- why would you complain about someone who agrees with you? However as you've demonstrated, if I post something that you DON'T agree with, it DOES upset you, and you tell me to grow up.

That's great advice for everyone. Let's take it. You're concerned that an extension author may, in the future, try to extort either money or source code from you. Instead of presenting hypotheticals, ("an author may...") why don't you list which extensions are you using, and which authors are you concerned about? We can use this information to determine whether or not you are truly at risk, and if you are; maybe we can find a way to prevent a negative outcome.

[Chris503]

Evanc,

His what if statements are valid concerns, no one thought what if ExtJS changes their license, and look what happened, allot of people ended up wasting hundreds of hours on projects that were not compatible with GPL.

User extensions are a concern (concern not handled 100% by the FLOSS), and any one selling a product that uses EXTJS for the front end should worry about them.

I also think he is correct in stating that the community has less activity, let’s face it the license change caused many seasoned Ext developers to have a grudge against the project, and people with grudges or that feel like a bait and switch happened are less likely to give to the community. I would venture to guess that the only reason people are still using EXTJS after the change is because of two reasons.

1. They already started or have finished products that use it.

2. There is nothing out there currently at the level of widgets that ExtJS offers.

That said, I strongly believe if there was a viable alternative to Extjs (BSD, LGPL, or even 100% paid proprietary) that people would jump ship in droves.

I use EXTJS in a project, and the minute I find something with all the features of ExtJS I will jump ship no questions asked, and won’t look back. But until that day comes I am stuck on the sinking ship as I need the features offered by EXTJS.

[durlabh]

Thanks Chris for putting my feelings into words :)

[nlotz]

you should just replicate the functionality of the extensions you need yourself Even if you don't care about the theft of IP, you would have to 'replicate' the extension without using a single line of ExtJS-Code:
Open Source License Exception for Development (http://extjs.com/products/ux-exception.php) [ 2. a. ]

[willgillen]

I have been in personal contact with developers of some ExtJS extensions, and the whole FLOSS exception rules have been better explained.

1.) The reason many ux developers had to switch to GPL for the "public" version was because they needed to get legal in terms of the current GPL for ExtJS.
2.) The FLOSS exceptions will work for commercial license holders if the developer of the extension is also a commercial license holder, and also offers a non-GPL license but FLOSS compatible license(such as BSD, LGPL, commercial, etc.)
3.) Then, commercial license holders may still be able to use the extension without exposing their own intellectual property to the GPL.

Having this cleared up for me, definitely helps me understand how the new licensing works with FLOSS exceptions. I appreciate the community members who have helped me see the light and get over this roadblock. Thank you all very much.

Now, on to continuing development after waiting 3 months for the licensing to get straightened out... =P~

-- W.G.

P.S. Evanc, seriously though bro, I hope no harm is done... it's just a discussion, and if I opened some old wounds, I do apologize. No ego stroking going on here... ;)

[nlotz]

Now, on to continuing development after waiting 3 months for the licensing to get straightened out... =P~
Welcome to the final stage of the Kübler-Ross model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model).