I think the EXT team should take particular care with this, given (1) the huge influx of newbie developers, and (2) the fact that 95% of the posts here are driven by the complexity of using this framework. The combination of those factors make a ripe market for someone to develop a commercial app that churns out EXT code, requiring little to no javascript knowledge. My guess is that's exactly what they were trying to prevent, so that they could be a paid source of consulting and expertise, however it's a safe bet they don't have the resources to start legally going after someone like that - especially with a tenuous licensing model.
I think that Jack & co made their intentions clear enough. They don't want someone coming along and branching off, thus diminishing the brand and possibly the quality of the product. Also when some company can just come along and redistribute the code and not compensate the team for their efforts, thats simply highway robbery. Especially if they are large enough that justly compensating the team for their work would be no hairs off their back (such as those listed on the homepage).
Jack & co deserve to make a mint from their work, they are providing us with the tools to grow and sell our own products... and a road for those that want to benefit from this work while at the same time redistributing it.
Makes perfect sense to me. People have mortgages to pay, and kids to feed you know.
What a crappy little article nit picking at something that is so trvial and is just a way of them covering there own back.
Maybe CNET should have spent 10mins looking through the forums and seeing the number of real world applications that are being created for companies based on ExtJS.
I have just finished our global affiliate managment system which without ExtJS would have never have happend as quickly as it did and we have been able to do so without worrying about getting a license for ExtJS yet!
Couldnt find anything bad to say about ExtJS so they throw a hissy fit over a license restriction thats there to cover ExtJS own back...
I love the energy of the Ext community! to all of you. I think more than anything (outside of the sarcasm in the article), i think the author was being very technical about the term 'open source', hence the link to the open source site.
None the less, i think it's great publicity for Ext - to be on a place like cnet.
But I - personally - think that behind one great framework there normally is one great mind. Not the guy/guyette that does everything on his own, but the type of person who weaves all together. That, in my opinion, is Jack with extjs.
My take on it is a little easier to grasp. There are two kinds of software distributions - "Closed source" and "open source". Open source doesn't need some long page of restrictions to define what it is - just like "closed source" doesn't need a definition. The source is either readily available or it is not.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, including the CNet author and the OSI provided definition. But that's all it is - an opinion.
One a humorous side note, the author of that blog post's company Alfresco releases their software under a dual license as well. Their choice, GPL and commercial license, is obviously ok in their eyes - yet is MUCH more restrictive than the Ext license. Go figure.
Jack Slocum
Ext JS Founder
Original author of Ext JS 1, 2 & 3.
Twitter: @jackslocum jack@extjs.com
Woah - Ext made cnet!
to all of you. I think more than anything (outside of the sarcasm in the article), i think the author was being very technical about the term 'open source', hence the link to the open source site. 
Reply With Quote
