SugarCRM dropping EXTJS due to License

[conga3]

OK, so a post on the SugarCRM Forum by one of the Sugar Team Members said this when referring to the reason why they are dropping EXTJS in the next release (5.5)



The #1 reason why ExtJS was removed was licensing issues.


They are moving towards YUI 3 instead.

Bah...

[brookd]

What "licensing issues"?

[abe.elias]

We spoke with the Sugar Execs a while ago. Ext isn't an issue for their GPL product. At the time, the issue was for their paid offerings which they do not release under the GPL.

This is where we had a couple of talks about having an agreement to accommodate their usage. Unfortunately, the response we received was "We don't pay for software."

Not sure if that's the licensing issue they allude to, but that's where things were left off.

[jburnhams]

That does sound like a likely explanation, as YUI is BSD so I guess they can alter it without needing to release any changes under the same license.

The thread in the sugar forum is here (http://www.sugarcrm.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47603)and the comment (http://www.sugarcrm.com/forums/showpost.php?p=185480&postcount=21)is:

The #1 reason why ExtJS was removed was licensing issues. Some other benefits though included a lower total javascript load per page and better UI integration with the Sugar Themes.
Although initially their explanation (http://www.sugarcrm.com/forums/showpost.php?p=166839&postcount=6)was:

SugarDev hit it on the head. Too many libraries doing the same things. We are streamlining our use of libraries.

[Mike Robinson]

I daresay that what they really said was, "We don't pay for free software."

It is pretty-much beyond argument, Abe, that your company is pushing (beyond) the intent of GPL-licensed open-source software: that you're really trying to "have it both ways at once."

"The software is open ...and yet, it's not. We will support you and answer your questions on how to use it and fix bugs ... and yet, we won't. We want to reap the business advantages of having an open-source product, but we want to do this in order to lock you in, and we reserve the right to change our minds at any time in the future. (i.e. after enough of you are 'really locked-in.'") It is very easy to see why a fellow commercial development company might have severe reservations about this, and might judge that the benefits do not outweigh the risks and/or the costs.

Now, it's your business, and "your business is your business," but it should not surprise you at all to encounter this kind of reaction from the developer community ... and to lose commercial customers because of it.

If something as vast and complex as "Linux itself" can be successfully distributed under a genuine open-source license, and the businesses involved can "make it work," then so can yours. And the day may come one day when your company pays quite dearly for having tried to play both ends against the middle. Your product is "good... damn good..." and that's the one thing that's keeping you afloat right now. But good things come very fast in this world these days, and from unlikely places. (Like dorm-rooms.)

[bobthebuilder]

I daresay that what they really said was, "We don't pay for free software."

It is pretty-much beyond argument, Abe, that your company is pushing (beyond) the intent of GPL-licensed open-source software: that you're really trying to "have it both ways at once."

"The software is open ...and yet, it's not. We will support you and answer your questions on how to use it and fix bugs ... and yet, we won't. We want to reap the business advantages of having an open-source product, but we want to do this in order to lock you in, and we reserve the right to change our minds at any time in the future. (i.e. after enough of you are 'really locked-in.'") It is very easy to see why a fellow commercial development company might have severe reservations about this, and might judge that the benefits do not outweigh the risks and/or the costs.

Now, it's your business, and "your business is your business," but it should not surprise you at all to encounter this kind of reaction from the developer community ... and to lose commercial customers because of it.

If something as vast and complex as "Linux itself" can be successfully distributed under a genuine open-source license, and the businesses involved can "make it work," then so can yours. And the day may come one day when your company pays quite dearly for having tried to play both ends against the middle. Your product is "good... damn good..." and that's the one thing that's keeping you afloat right now. But good things come very fast in this world these days, and from unlikely places. (Like dorm-rooms.)

I don't think it is fair to put a negative connotation on dual-licensing. Many companies do this successfully, and it is one of the more popular and successful ways to monetize a project that initially started as a part-time occupation that got serious. It also allows efforts to grow as we live in a capitalist world where money is required. Note: this is the same model that SugarCRM is using.

If SugarCRM wanted to continue to use ExtJS in their commercially licensed product than it would only be fair for them to pay. Paying per-developer-seat probably doesn't work for them either if they have many open source developers. No doubt a royalty-based deal was discussed too. They probably made a business decision not to because they felt there was a viable, free, alternative for them.

Remember that the intellectual property; the copyright of the code, is retained by the person who wrote it regardless of the license, and the copyright holder is free to relicense their contribution whenever they want (but not retrospectively).

However, it is a difficult balancing act and I believe that the ExtJS model of not releasing bug fixes to the community in a timely manner (right now coming on 4 months and no release) will not win it many friends.