That is so far from the truth. It makes it open source for open source. The GPL is the only open source license that makes sure everything done with it is also open source. If anything, it is the epitomy of open source and proliferates additional open source works.
I was being facetious. Sorry about that. You won't convince people though. GPL == viral especially for libraries.
Not everyone have attorneys so you have to boil it down simply for standard approaches.
As I read it (and interprete) the license is for development use and not for the actual runtime. So my company has to pay like 300 bucks for me as a developer to use the gxt widgets in our products. we can (as I read the license) deploy our product on as many servers (actually I think the gxt license says unlimited) as many times as we want to without any royalties. At 300 bucks (no brainer) buy the license (or 100) and move on. In fact if you work for a company that has $300 to spend on getting a product out, then becuase of the commercial license, you can assure your upper management that you will not have to release your source when you deploy your product.
As I read it (and interprete) the license is for development use and not for the actual runtime. So my company has to pay like 300 bucks for me as a developer to use the gxt widgets in our products. we can (as I read the license) deploy our product on as many servers (actually I think the gxt license says unlimited) as many times as we want to without any royalties. At 300 bucks (no brainer) buy the license (or 100) and move on. In fact if you work for a company that has $300 to spend on getting a product out, then becuase of the commercial license, you can assure your upper management that you will not have to release your source when you deploy your product.
My interpretation as well. I don't understand why people are really upset. They shouldn't. It doesn't mean they can't use the library. It just means they have to pay for developers license. They want to keep paying nothing. Well it's over. move on.
However, I don't like extjs spin that they did this for open source reason because everyone knows this is BS. Makes them look bad and ignorant.
Yes, I was wrong to say the above. I should have said, No company uses GPLed library within their code.
Which is entirely the point. Ext, as a business, can only survive if companies that use it pay for it. But Ext, as a project, also attempts to provide a benefit to the open source community. If Ext is LGPL or BSD licensed, no one will need to buy it (other than to get support). It really makes a lot of sense to have the dual GPL / Commercial licensing model.
The previous LGPL license wasn't really valid imho. The license change massively simplifies things, and makes it very clear now where you stand. Either you go fully GPL, for your whole project, or you buy a commercial license. You don't need a lawyer to understand that.
Originally Posted by jack.slocum
Reply With Quote