Turkiyenin en sevilen filmlerinin yer aldigi porno internet sitemiz olan ve sex tarzi bir site olan sitemiz gercekten dillere destan bir durumda herkesin sevdigi bir site olarak tarihe gececege benziyor. Sitenin en belirgin ozelliklerinden birisi de Turkiyede gercekten kaliteli ve muntazam, duzenli siteleri olmamasidir. Bu yuzden iste. Ayrica en net goruntu kalitesine sahip adresinde yayinlanmaktadir.
Gelmiş geçmiş en büyük porno sitemiz olan 2pe de her zaman en kaliteli pornoları sunmayı hedefledik. Diğer video sitemiz olan vuam da ise hd porno ağırlıklı çalışmalara başladık.
I usually get very confused by licenses and this is not an exception. If I use EXT in a commercial website (I don't distribute the code just host it) does it mean I need a developer license with the new licensing model? If that's the case then I'm glad I haven't made a switch from YAHOO UI! to ExtJS yet (and the worst part is that I just started yesterday!).
It seems like this move is an effort to bring more people who may be using ExtJS in commercial projects to have to pay for that use.
The ExtJS team has every right to use whatever license they want to, and to make money on ExtJS.
One side effect of this is that ExtJS cannot be used any more in many open source projects (except for GPL licensed open source projects of course.)
Would the ExtJS team consider making an exception for using ExtJS within other open source projects? For example Apache licensed projects? For those of us who work on Open Source projects we can't really afford to pay for a commercial license (because we don't make money on this work!)
Just last night, I incorporated a demo into jabsorb (an Apache licensed open source project) for ExtJS (see http://extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30759) I noticed the new release was out and I was going to update the demo for 2.1, however now I can't do that without violating the license.....
Of course this is just a simple example, but I was considering using ExtJS for more things, like control panels, etc. within other Apache licensed open source projects...
How does this affect non-profits, who may use ext-js for non-commercial applications but may not necessarily want to share the source code and would be hard pushed to afford to a developers license?
I've no problem with the team who have developed Ext making money out of it - in fact they deserve to. Its an exceptional piece of work which is the best example of its kind out there at the moment. However, in my opinion the GPL is a very restrictive license for anyone who works outside of the strictly open source world, and I can see a few projects having to re-evaluate their use of Ext in light of this.
The new license terms are quite a bummer. While I certainly think that ExtJS is well worth the money, I am going to have a very hard time convincing management of that. It was hard enough to get them to agree to a support contract.
Assuming 2.0.2 is still fair game, I guess we'll just stick with that for a while...a long while. At least until I can show management a must-have feature that's worth the $5,000. If our project really takes off, we'll have to go the $15k route, which would be a nice problem to have.
I completely agree here with what is being said, unfortunately I don't do my work on projects the earn money so I can't afford to purchase a license to support ExtJS even though I wish I could. But this presents a problem for me because I have a strong disliking for the GPL since it is VIRAL, I would much rather see a modified LGPL if necessary or another one.
With that said, I still can't fault the team for wanting to make money with their product at all, I think all of use would like to make money with our projects, so more power to them, however it just makes things difficult since they want to support open source but now at the same time kinda damaging the projects at the same time.
Thats just my two cents. Once again I would like to reiterate my support and that these are my opinions and ExtJS is definitely worth the price if you can afford it.
That would be a better question to be sent via email to the ExtJS team.
Maybe not - most likely there are other people who are interested in the answer as well (including myself). I can understand that specific questions should be answered by the person(s) @Ext who are well informed about these concerns. But the drawback of refering to a mail contact via firstname.lastname@example.org is that those questions will arise over and over again. And that's due to a missing license FAQ which explains such common questions.
With Ext 2.1 (GPL 3), all your client side code the references Ext will have to be GPL3 licensed, but not the server side application that it talks to. In fact you might not even have access to the source code for the server side application, such as a Third-party JSON based webservice.