28 Apr 2008 12:52 PM #501
Nevertheless, I don't know what other legal consequences this combination might have; the above is only my opinion as the author of my extensions and plugins.-->
28 Apr 2008 1:02 PM #502
I respect Jack and his team a lot.
But are you sure he/they "did" extjs from scratch ?
No, that's not a crummy thing to do at all, actually. It's one of the many beauties of the open source community. If you think you can take something that already exists and make it into something better than where you think it's going, you have that freedom.-->
28 Apr 2008 8:38 PM #503
I don't count myself as a member of the community, I made a few things with extjs at the end of last year and came back to evaluate the latest version in a new, bigger project. Came back just in time to see this debate kick off, open source licensing be misunderstood by many community members and the Ext core development team and have the licensing email ignore me for so long I spent my money elsewhere. I find this debate incredibly distracting though and it has implications for my business and lessons to be learned for my own (true) open source projects.
While the fork(s) are no doubt appearing now to get around the license, that's a way of making Ext better in many people's eyes. Again if you give people freedom to use modify and distribute your product you can't tell them not to modify and distribute it unless you are specifically making the code better.
I'd be able to fork 2.1 rename it My-js and sell it to people for $50,000 per license without making anything better. Look at what people do with OpenOffice.org there are three different boxed versions at my local computer shop, all essentially OOo ranging from $10 - $250.
I digress, I've given up on Ext-js for the time being not because I don't want to pay for it, but because a community backlash against a unilateral license change is bad. It brings up copyright concerns Ext haven't addressed yet (to me, via email) and takes a lot away from what makes this an attractive prospect from my point of view. I'll see what happens with version 3.0-->
29 Apr 2008 12:54 AM #504
Does it really matter?
Does it really matter?
This whole thing has made me go and read the GLP v3 way more times than I ever wanted to... lol
Further, there is a huge question in this case about conveying and propogating in my opinion. On the internet, the ext code is executed in the browser on the client machine. Therefore, I would contend that the "covered work" would constitute the ext js routines, the html, css, and images that combined form the "program" which is executing at the client. This is all source code, and is distributed as such, therefore, however you generated that combination of HTML, CSS, and Ext would be irrelevant to the question. If you compile a GPL'd program with MS Visual Studio, visual studio does not become GPL'd. Likewise if you compile a web page using a proprietary piece of software, and that web page contains GPL'd code, and is therefore GPL'd, the proprietary compiling software does not become GPL'd.
Slightly murking up the waters is the fact that the GPL specifically states that "Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying." I would argue any web application falls under this clause. Although I don't know what the creators of GPLv3 intended this clause to cover. If I were in a court arguing this case, I would start with this argument. I would say "I am not conveying a copy, and therefore, the conveyance clauses are not applicable. Because I am not conveying the program, I am not required to distribute the source code". It appears to me as though the GPL only comes into effect upon conveyance, there is no requirement upon any recipient of GPL'd code to distribute that code in any form if they are simply running the code. Even if you make modifications to a GPL'd program, as long as you are not distributing (in the license they use the term conveying) that program, you need not make your modifications available. Hence, if a webapp falls under "mere interaction with a user through a computer network", then a web app does not create a conveyance of the program, and as such, does not require the release of the source code of the webapp.
Last but not least, I really only see this move hurting Ext's adoption. There are quite a few JS libraries out there. My team builds web sites for small companies. Why would we ever use a framework that says to our customers "Oh yeah, we can do this, but then your website will be open sourced"?!? What does it gain Ext, or the open source community at large, to have hundreds or millions of one off database driven websites open sourced? What about the huge CMS's that are GPL'd? Joomla for example is GPL'd, I can and have developed great COMMERCIAL web sites using Joomla. Does Joomla maintain that this new website is GPL'd?!? I don't think so. Further, there are COMMERCIAL applications written that use Joomla as a framework. Joomla proudly lists and advertises these applications on their website. Simply importing and using a framework doesn't appear to "require that the new program be GPL'd" as is being maintained by Ext, LLC.
IANAL, of course... but I really think this was a stupid move by Ext, and even if I could afford the $5k for the commercial license, I'd rather spend that money on developers and help improve dojo, prototype, scriptaculous or some other truly free framework.-->
29 Apr 2008 2:31 AM #505
Fully agree with pavera.
IMHO the statement from the FSF member quoted by Darrel is nonsence:
Not going to buy commercial license for POC (proof of concept) projects, no way. Would have needed premium support when getting a real project (after POC). Not getting there anymore, you are loosing potential customers.
Oh yes, I could simply not tell anyone and use it for the POC. Sorry, GPL is a "no go" for most of my customers. Especially after reading your interpretation of GPL.
My question is: was it worth it? I have serious doubts here.
I hope I can get one or another customer to get a license. In the past I was building from trunk, answering questions in the forum, helping where I could. At least I was spreading the word, mentioning MyGWT and the JFace like API in an article for the Eclipse Magazine in Germany.
This is over, I feel like the community is gone.
just my 2 cents.-->
29 Apr 2008 4:58 AM #506
commercial licenses are per developer - and Jack said, that will not change as long as he is in the company. YOU need a license. Not your customer per se. (only after you handed over the project and they want to change something in it). So if you do your POC project, all is fine, since you have a commercial license, don't you?
And, I don't feel like 'the community is gone'. Some of the more prominent members of the community would certainly agree, if they had not stop reading this mega-thread after 100 posts or so
re-read all post from Jack. Including Ext JS in a page does not mean, all your server-side code needs to be GPL'd. It depends on how you integrate it and how you are interacting with it. (only passing along generic data = JSON without xtype or stuff like that, is considered save by Jack).
Ext JS is truly free. It is truly Open Source. As per the definition of FSF.
``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''Daniel Jagszent
dɐɳiel@ʝɐgszeɳt.de <- convert to plain ASCII to get my email address-->
29 Apr 2008 5:10 AM #507
i appreciate extjs and what jack and the ext team did is really fantastic...
so all people in the "ex"-extjs community has to respect jack and extjs team...
first extjs is not a project from scratch since it has been forked from YUI...
Second extjs is not only the work of these people but it has been enhanced by community work like extensions, patches, debbugging...
conclusion : the project is loosing trust of the community and will be forked by others people since we don't need ext official team to go on on the project...J2EE/Ajax-->
29 Apr 2008 5:17 AM #508
I work as a consultant and even the POCs I am involved with are build by small teams at the customer. This is not unusual here in Germany.
Regarding community, it's a matter of definition. What I see are customers - good for you. I sincerely do hope people continue contributing, although you are the ones cashing. Don't get me wrong. I'd love to pay for support, but not for the code. Not for community code. That's the point where our definition of community differ.
Regarding GPL and our code: did you lose you mind? Did you really ask us to use JSON instead of GWT-RPC??? Did you understand the benefits of GWT, deferred binding, generators? GWT creates the best RPC possible for my classes, why should I do it by hand? GWT is more than just generating JS, is more than your lib.
And, if you re-read pavera's posting, you will see that it is not about getting free beer. It's about misuse and misunderstanding of GPL. Getting payed is OK, no prob. Stretching GPL to your needs is not OK. Bitching pavera by statements like yours is a bad attitude. Paveras posting is serious. He took the time to explain what and why - is "If you want free beer, you will not get it here." all you have to say to his posting? Is this how you treat community members, when they raise issues? See, this is another point where our definition of community differs.
Free speech is fine. Hope you can do better.-->
29 Apr 2008 5:28 AM #509
1. Ext was not forked from YUI. It started as an extension to YUI. Now it can be used as an extension to YUI, jQuery and Prototype+Scriptacolous.
2. Ext, LLC owns all copyrights for Ext JS. (AFAIK except some minor parts which were under BSD license)
Don't speak for 'the community' - speak for yourself. Ext, LLC has lost your trust. It has not lost mine. In fact, my trust in Ext, LLC has grown since it became a true supporter of Open Source software.Daniel Jagszent
dɐɳiel@ʝɐgszeɳt.de <- convert to plain ASCII to get my email address-->
29 Apr 2008 5:36 AM #510
The funny thing is, that EXT is planning FLOSS exceptions. For those making extensions/ themes/ etc. This is odd. I thought GPL to protect me from those proprietary changes - so I get the code so I can make changes if I need. But here it is completely the way arround!!!-->