22 Apr 2008 3:54 AM #101
Again, I really wonder if many people are missing the point here.
Please refer back to my original post on this thread, #72, which has since been referenced by #89.
Unless someone can reference proof to the otherwise, I believe that the only restriction GPL has over LGPL is if you are looking to provide something using Ext as a product rather than a service.
Using Ext on a hosted web site, either on the public Internet or a private Intranet - no additional requirements.
Taking that same application and making it available for others ("run this on your web site"), then your software must also be GPL, or the commercial license must be chosen.
(Ext team: This thread appears to be a run-away train. It'd be very helpful if you could create and post a FAQ based on the questions and assumptions from within this thread.)-->
22 Apr 2008 4:02 AM #102
@ziesemer, I have read the GPL a couple times (unfortunately), however you understanding is incorrect based on my understanding and what I have read, any type of application, website, service, or otherwise that uses a GPL'd product, must then be also GPL'd. Its the viral nature of the GPL.
The GPL fact states that if you use something that is GPL'd internally (not available for the public to use or see) then you don't have to release your "product" under the GPL, but it is is release to the public in any fashion it must then be released under the GPL.-->
22 Apr 2008 4:09 AM #103
Please reference http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods:
A company is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web site. Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources?
The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release the modified sources.
Last edited by ziesemer; 22 Apr 2008 at 4:12 AM. Reason: Referencing AGPL-->
22 Apr 2008 4:14 AM #104
@ziesemer, I am not trying to be rude, but again you like many others don't read the entire part. It goes on to say:
It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing those modifications. However, putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly “private” use, so it would be legitimate to require release of the source code in that special case. Developers who wish to address this might want to use the GNU Affero GPL for programs designed for network server use.-->
22 Apr 2008 4:16 AM #105
In my country however some of the clients will not be willing to share code back specially since it would provide business intellectual property. However those codes may be renderered through ExtJS forms through the wire in which GPL will infect.
Can you please point me to the web reference of the documentation that states the LGPL license for ExtJS?
Hmm there's hope...-->
22 Apr 2008 4:20 AM #106
@acharis, this only applies to Ext 2.0.2 and lower for LGPL and you can only use LGPL as a license if you agree to one of the following terms:
* Want to use Ext in an open source project that precludes using non-open source software
* Plan to use Ext in a personal, educational or non-profit manner
* Are using Ext in a commercial application that is not a software development library
or toolkit, you will meet LGPL requirements and you do not wish to support the project.-->
22 Apr 2008 4:31 AM #107
@dezo33 - You need a license per developer, not per customer. So if you are going to develop something and use it to make money, you need a commercial license. If you are going to develop something and give it for free, then you can use the OS license path.
I'm still missing answers to remaining questions, including for how long Ext guarantees that answers it gives now will stay in force - I'm developing applications that may be around for next 20-30 years.-->
22 Apr 2008 4:35 AM #108
One more: OK, per developer. If the developer leaves the company. What now? Buy another? How often? Every year?-->
22 Apr 2008 4:39 AM #109
Wow 20-30 years, whats your secret. j/k. I hope that works out for you. In respects to open source licensing, you generally cannot reverse a decision on a release already out. However you can change it future release or future downloads of a release theoretically that is. I haven't seen anyone every try this.
As for you second statement, that is a little confusing, and if you really need answers, emailing the licensing department of Ext would be better then posting their response, there is only a few of them and they don't have time to peruse the thousands of posts each day in depth cause they are working on Ext.
Allows for a single developer to install and use Ext JS on unlimited workstations for development and to deploy Ext JS on unlimited domains and sub-domains on unlimited servers.-->
22 Apr 2008 4:47 AM #110-->