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.

  1. #11
    Ext User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    8
    Vote Rating
    0
    hucmuc is on a distinguished road

      0  

    Default


    Quote Originally Posted by jack.slocum View Post
    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.

    Just have an FAQ on it and be done with it!

  2. #12
    Ext User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    63
    Vote Rating
    0
    cdasher is on a distinguished road

      0  

    Default


    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.

  3. #13
    Ext User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    8
    Vote Rating
    0
    hucmuc is on a distinguished road

      0  

    Default


    Quote Originally Posted by cdasher View Post
    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.

    You GPL applications. You don't GPL libraries.
    D

  4. #14
    Ext User dantheman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    259
    Vote Rating
    1
    dantheman is on a distinguished road

      0  

    Default


    Quote Originally Posted by hucmuc View Post
    No one and I mean no one that works for a company uses GPL software per se.
    Unfathomable ignorance.

    Every company on wall street uses GPL software.

    Almost certainly, every company you've worked for
    (if it had an "IT" department), uses GPL software . . .

    The limb you wish to saw off is the one you're standing on...
    --dan

  5. #15
    Ext User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    8
    Vote Rating
    0
    hucmuc is on a distinguished road

      0  

    Default


    Quote Originally Posted by dantheman View Post
    Unfathomable ignorance.

    Every company on wall street uses GPL software.

    Almost certainly, every company you've worked for
    (if it had an "IT" department), uses GPL software . . .

    The limb you wish to saw off is the one you're standing on...
    --dan

    Yes, I was wrong to say the above. I should have said, No company uses GPLed library within their code.

  6. #16
    Ext JS Premium Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Antwerp, Belgium
    Posts
    555
    Vote Rating
    27
    joeri has a spectacular aura about joeri has a spectacular aura about joeri has a spectacular aura about

      0  

    Default


    Quote Originally Posted by hucmuc View Post
    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.