PDA

View Full Version : License



hucmuc
22 Apr 2008, 12:03 PM
Darrell:

Could you clarify the licensing? I know in the mygwt forum you said it was license LGPL. However, this contradicts the licensing page on http://extjs.com/products/license.php.

Dino

darrellmeyer
22 Apr 2008, 12:41 PM
There have been a lot of changes in the last couple of days and I can understand the confusion. MyGWT was licensed under the LGPL. Ext JS and Ext GWT are dual licensed with an open source and commercial license. The open source license for both Ext JS and Ext GWT, is GPL v3.0.

huherto
22 Apr 2008, 12:44 PM
Darrel,

I am really worried about this change. When I started using mygwt it was LGPL. That means that I could use it with out getting approval from upper management. I have dedicated many months to learning the library. I have helped debug the library. I have developed software that depends in the library. I feel cheated, since I invested in the library because it was LGPL.

I think mygwt is a fine product and worth the money. But I worry that using LGPL was a cheap trick to get me invested in it. I do not want to deal with Ext. I don't think is a serious company, and I worry they may change to other scheme (per concurrent users, per server, etc.)

laurentsd
22 Apr 2008, 1:25 PM
There have been a lot of changes in the last couple of days and I can understand the confusion. MyGWT was licensed under the LGPL. Ext JS and Ext GWT are dual licensed with an open source and commercial license. The open source license for both Ext JS and Ext GWT, is GPL v3.0.

Can we still use MyGwt 0.5 under LGPL as you had said before?
Thanks
--Laurent

plitvak
22 Apr 2008, 1:58 PM
Ext JS and Ext GWT, is GPL v3.0.

So this means one cannot use Ext GWT in the commercial product if this product is not GPL since:

"Q. If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?"

"A.Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library."

darrellmeyer
22 Apr 2008, 2:08 PM
huherto
I can assure you that there were no "cheap tricks" done and none of the changes made were to pull off a bait-and-switch. Because of the "field of use" restrictions within the Ext license, Ext could not affirm the open source definition. The primary issue is, prior to 2.1, The Ext license prohibits the use within developer toolkits.

Ext made the decision to move to the GPL ensure its success within the open source community. This is why the restriction on developer toolkits was removed.

It would not have been a good decision to remove the restrictions move to the standard LGPL as others would then be able to directly compete with Ext using Ext's code.


laurentsd
Yes, the new license only applies to Ext GWT 1.0.

sheesh-kebab
22 Apr 2008, 4:21 PM
>Ext. I don't think is a serious company, and I worry they may change to other scheme (per concurrent users, per server, etc.)

unfortunately, the same can be told of a large number of other projects (especially those that refrain from public committers to retain control over copyright and potentially change the licensing). Sun's Java itself is a prime example.

There are certainly some examples where companies suddenly change their OSS licensing terms to justify the business side, but most of the time it doesn't happen.

The more likely scenario for a failure of a product is lack of product support due to loss of interest (or change in priorities) or just lack of ability to do it.

I certainly have no idea what the long term product strategy is for Ext, but so far it doesn't seem to be that they are not interested in supporting their product. So at least this part is promising. As with all startups and open source products in early stages - it's a bet when you pick them.

silom
22 Apr 2008, 5:32 PM
Darrell,

So I can just fork the LGPL mygwt 0.5.2 code and continue improving it as an LGPL project, together with many other developers? You sure did a wonderful job with mygwt, but the new license for 1.0 would prevent many from using it. I know http://code.google.com/p/my-gwt/ still exists, but because of this sudden change, I am not convinced that it too will not suddenly disappear.

gslender
22 Apr 2008, 6:01 PM
silom, let us all know if you decide to fork myGWT as I'd be happy to provide support, testing and bug fixes etc - who knows, I might even find the time to improve on widget to support fancier features etc...

ushkinaz
23 Apr 2008, 4:55 AM
Forking LGPL version might be a good idea. I'd switch to forked version as soon as it would have appear.

In any case, releasing commercially supported library which is based on unsupported and unreleased 1.5 version of GWT is something really weird for me. I wouldn't go with my commercial projects for gxt 1.0 until GWT 1.5 is released.

ptonev
23 Apr 2008, 6:58 AM
Hello All,

Having in mind the arised situation I think that MyGWT library can be used (as this will be in my company) for internal use with its latest version always, i.e. all tools for maintenance support and internal tools will be written to MyGWT which has good performance and look and feel, but if you want to make a really good UI, I recommend to use FLEX 3 which is free but concerning the UI features I think this question is out of comment, of course you have to write stuff carefully due to memory problems that are in the process of fixing but it deserves the efforts. This way you will be alwawys using AJAX technology which will keep your backend clean and clear. If you want to see te effect of this licence change just compare the users before "licesing" and after that, the activity in the forums, this count has decreased significantly.

Best Regards,
Pavel

huherto
23 Apr 2008, 7:30 AM
I have been thinking about this problem. I think that the right thing to do is to fork. I will help with support, bug fixes, etc.

--
Humberto

silom
23 Apr 2008, 7:48 AM
I would like to create such fork. In fact I already created a project for it. But I didn't include the sources (trunk) yet, as I would like to get a clarification from Darrell or Ext JS first. It would be all LGPL and very open towards new project members and accepting patches and documentation.

darrellmeyer
23 Apr 2008, 8:57 AM
You are free to fork 0.5.2, if that is something you would like to spend your time on. Ext GWT will be moving forward at a rapid pace, continuing to add new functionality.

I have 2 items for you to consider.

1. The Free Software Foundation has stated that because of the GWT compiler, any application that uses MyGWT will be considered a derivate work and subject to the requirement in section 4(d) and will need to provide source code:


Just to be clear, I put the question to FSF directly. I got permission from Brett to post his reply. You'll find it below:

On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 13:01 -0500, Alan Wood via RT wrote:
> The crux of the issue is that although the library is written in Java and
> your foundation's stance on Java is that the LGPL is 100% compatible with
> not shipping final source upon the use of it, MyGWT is meant to be used with
> a Java based toolkit called GWT. This GWT reads java source and cross
> compiles all the source together into 1 JavaScript (not related to Java)
> module that gets transmitted to the client and runs in the web browser. The
> argument is that when GWT does this, it creates a derivative work of the
> library and thus requires that the module created be shipped with source so
> that the GWT can in fact be used again to create a new version of the module
> with an altered version of the library.

Alan,

I think the argument you've laid out here is basically correct.

In the terms that LGPLv3 uses, MyGWT is the Library, software that
developers build on top of it is an Application (in the usual case), and
the Javascript that gets sent to users' browsers is a Combined Work.
Since the Javascript is being conveyed to those users, the developers
hosting it on their servers need to follow the conditions for doing so
set forth in section 4 of LGPLv3.

In order to comply with the requirement in section 4(d), it does seem
like those developers need to provide Minimal Corresponding Source and
Corresponding Application Source, as allowed in section 4(d)0. Using a
suitable shared library mechanism, as allowed in section 4(d)1, does not
seem to be possible here: it doesn't look like GWT has any capability to
make use of libraries that are already installed on a user's system.

I hope this helps you understand where these requirements are coming
from. If you have any further questions, or think I may have
misunderstood something about GWT, please feel free to get in touch.

Best regards,

--
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation

2. You need to consider that the CSS and images are not licensed under the LGPL. You will need to take a look at the license information which only permits use of the assets with their MyGWT components.

damir222
23 Apr 2008, 9:30 AM
This discussion has all needed ingredients to go somewhere unconstructive:(
But I'll join because I need clarification in regards to license...

First, I want to state that I think paying developers for their work is very important, in one form or another. We all need money to live.

One important point is that some people use some open source software as a kind of insurance. That's why for example LAMP is a viable alternative to MS and Java worlds, while many inovative products by small companies are not.
What i'm getting at, is that companies go out of business or discontinue ther products, while people using these products want to continue using them as long as they chose.
That's where 'good' oss licences come in, if someone abandons the product, the comunity is FREE to continue using it, including fixing bugs and making improvements.


This brings us to the main concern i have with this license change, for which I ask for clarification. GPL licence cannot be used for developing proprietary software, but what about comercial one? What hapens if ext decided to drop support, or anything unpredicted happens? Will I/we be able to modify the source code? Will we, the users of comercial license, be able to join our efforts in maintaining the library and preventing abandonment?
Why should we trust you over other players, long term viability is as important as technical concerns when choosing a platform, and good intentions are not a guarantee!


Respect to darell, for showing us the way, but I'm concerned that nothing but the apache style license will be business friendly .... that leaves us right at the stating point regarding compensating inovative developers for thair great work.

bummer...

Damir

gslender
23 Apr 2008, 1:04 PM
I would like to create such fork. In fact I already created a project for it. But I didn't include the sources (trunk) yet, as I would like to get a clarification from Darrell or Ext JS first. It would be all LGPL and very open towards new project members and accepting patches and documentation.

silom - my advice would be to create the project and sit back... if people come willing to help, then you have your answers... if not, then nothing harmed.

WhiteRussian
24 Apr 2008, 4:57 AM
On how much I understand an ExtJS is a fork of Yahoo UI (which is distributed under a license BSD) If you do not want to use ExtJS under GPLv3 then you can use Yahoo UI
http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/examples/

basb
24 Apr 2008, 5:38 AM
Hi Darrell,

What a lot of changes in just a few days.

As you now I am willing to pay you for all the great work (the least thing I can do is buy a licence). Still, the following is bothering me:

In http://mygwt.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1018 you said just a month ago:
"MyGWT will continue to be licensed under the LGPL for 1.0. The project will stay the same. I will still be developing and supporting the library as I do today."

What happened to that promise?

Regards,

Bas.

silom
25 Apr 2008, 6:27 PM
Folks,

I decided to abandon MyGWT. The dependency in my project is currently relatively small so this is possible for me. For those who wonder why I wouldn't buy a commercial license I would like to remind you of this (from the license page):


...Each person who directly or indirectly creates an application or user interface containing Ext components is considered a developer."

I use MyGWT in a tiny piece of a much larger project, and the above would mean that each developer in this project requires this license, even if they are not using it directly.

I also abandoned my original proposal of forking MyGWT. As Darrell mentions (I was not aware of this before), the LGPL would be a problem for each commercial project. Also, Darrell used code and resources from many different places throughout MyGWT. Removing those dependencies would be a significant amount of work.

Putting a significant amount of work in a LGPL project that isn't acceptable for a commercial project led me to a new conclusion.

I have created a new project called GWTLib at http://www.gwtlib.org. I have been working for the past two days on the first widget for this library, namely a table component (that's what I need right now). So I didn't focus on the site and the pages are still almost completely empty. I didn't check in any code yet, but expect that I will have done so sometime this weekend. This new GWT library will be all Apache License 2.0. It will be written completely from scratch and will have therefore no relation at all with MyGWT or anything else. Please do not expect it to be as mature as MyGWT anytime soon of course. I will focus on the table component first, and then on a menu component.

Any help is highly appreciated and will be accepted immediately after the weekend. I first want to get the table component ready, so I need to focus :).

ushkinaz
25 Apr 2008, 6:44 PM
silom, that's brave, for sure )))
btw, did you check GWT Incubator (http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/) and especially ScrollTable (http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/ScrollTable) and PagingScrollTable (http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/PagingScrollTable)? Probably it already has everything you need. Widgets in incubator are stable enough, at least comparable with gxt ones. The only problem - supporting IE only atm.

silom
25 Apr 2008, 7:16 PM
Yes. The problem is that it requires GWT 1.5.

ushkinaz
26 Apr 2008, 3:45 AM
Anyways, silom, thanks for your effort.
It's highly unlikely that I'll be using gxt/mygwt in my future projects, so I'm very interested in a good commercial friendly alternative. As for help - drop me a pm, we'll see what we can do =)

kindkid
28 Apr 2008, 2:48 PM
You are free to fork 0.5.2, if that is something you would like to spend your time on. Ext GWT will be moving forward at a rapid pace, continuing to add new functionality.

I have 2 items for you to consider.

1. The Free Software Foundation has stated that because of the GWT compiler, any application that uses MyGWT will be considered a derivate work and subject to the requirement in section 4(d) and will need to provide source code:

(snipped)



Let me make sure I understand:

1. The (L)GPL license makes certain requirements on combined works. An examples of a combined work is an executable linked to an (L)GPL libraries. In our case, it would be the javascript compiled via GWT from our code and Ext GWT.

2. In the usual case of linked executables (and the LGPL), merely permitting reverse engineering of our code and allowing linking to other versions of the library is sufficient. In the case of a monolithic combined work (such as the javascript that GWT produces), this is not sufficient, and we must provide the java source code (and the (L)GPL library source code) used by the GWT compiler to generate the javascript.

3. This is the best case scenario for LGPL. In the case of the GPL, it is likely that other sections of our code (server side) may also become infected with the license terms, and need to be released.

Shocking! And quite interesting. :-?

So, I need to be sure if I'm using Ext GWT for the UI on some website under the non-commercial license that I include a link to all my related source code and Ext GWT source code for download.

It also follows that if I'm an organization who doesn't intend to release my source code, with a website who has a friend volunteering (or contractor being paid) to build my UI, and she decides to use Ext GWT (or any other (L)GPL'd GWT library), that I say "no", and insist on a less restrictive, or else perhaps commercially licensed library. Fortunately, Ext GWT provides a commercial license. Incidentally, I should also make sure that that I've purchased the commercial license from the beginning, because "trying it out" under the (L)GPL would put my code base at peril as soon as the generated javascript appeared on someone else's browser.

Brilliant! :))

Have I understood the nature of the dual-license correctly? It seem dishearteningly severe (though perhaps, fair).

My apologies for thinking "out loud" here. Hope it is useful to someone. :D

zaccret
5 May 2008, 1:47 AM
I'm not sure to understand the reason of all of this debate. :-/

The first thing I want to say is that the GPL is the "ordinary" open source licence (actually, this is the point of view of the FSF ;-) ) so I don't find it shocking for an open source product to become GPL-licensed. Right, but it doesn't mean it is the best for us, it just means that it contributes to open source software.

The second thing is the supposed license "confusion". Since the license change, on the contrary I find it clearer than LGPL+Assets. Ext GWT is now under GPL, and due to the terms of GPL, it will stays GPL, until all Ext GWT contributors agree to change the license (but maybe "all contributors" = the Ext company). So, if you write open source (commercial or not) software, there is no change for you. More, you will now ever be able to freely modify or redistribute Ext GWT as long as you do it under GPL licence.

The problem comes when you want to use proprietary software and Ext GWT. That's right, for that you need a proprietary license or a non-GPL open source license. The problem is that your web application has to be under GPL licence since it uses GPL-licensed code. If you write the web application for your company internal use, this is not a problem. If you want to sell/distribute it, well, I think that your GUI module must be under GPL license, but your "server-side" code (servlets responding to RPC, for example) can be proprietary, cannot it ?

Actually, here are the "open source" cases where the problem occurs :
- your customer may want to redistribute the software under another open source licence than GPL
- you want to use GPL-incompatible libraries in your GUI module (non-free libraries or EPL, CPL, Apache Licence < 2.0, ...)
- I'm wrong about the possibility to create a GUI module under GPL licence which makes RPCalls to a proprietary server-side module.

In these cases, a solution could to be for Ext to authorize something like the FLOSS exceptions of MySQL and then to put your program under LGPL, Apache License 2.0 or other permissive open source license.

The last case is when you want to write a fully proprietary solution (you don't want your customer to see the sources). Here, the answer is clear : you have to purchase a commercial license (actually, they should call it "Proprietary licence" because you can write commercial software under GPL). Isn't that quite normal ?

zaccret
6 May 2008, 5:30 AM
I've edit the previous post after a lot of reading :-p

drz
7 May 2008, 12:36 AM
Can one use 0.5.2 in a commercial project?
If not, can one buy a commercial license for 0.5.2?

(We are not ready to switch to non final Gwt 1.5.)

visumagic
7 May 2008, 10:12 PM
Hi ALL,
I'm feeling very pity about myself. As it became commercial ,it's worth . But coming days people wont believe. And wery good widgets are coming up in gwt incubator
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/w/list
And these will be available soon. (We can also try these by grabbing truck)

Ratings for ext-gwt:
http://www.gwtsite.com/ext-gwt-gwt-ext-what-now/

People are not really interested going to commercial frameworks for UIs. I too agree gxt is wonderful. But if I develop my simple website using gxt ,it's not really costly but it's not recommended to depend on commercial once in Java.we will get better open source libs very soon. Then we it will be tough to restructure your application towards other framework.

I prefer going to my own widgets+contributing to gwt incubator + encouraging opensource libs.

good bye gxt..
thanks
raghu.

PGTaboada
7 May 2008, 11:19 PM
Zacret: GPL is ok, that's my opinion too. I would develop my own apps in GPL, no prob. There are two things that I am concerned with:

first - it is the FSFs statement and Exts undertanding that the generated web application (especially the JS) is object code and that the fact that the user runs the application in the browser makes it a distribution. Following this statements it will lead to the conclusion that the user of the web application will have the right to get the GPLed code. In GWT my backend interacts through GWT-RPC with the GPLed frontent - viral infection. So even for my own small apps I won't give be able to use the "open source" version.

second - as a consultant, I have to comply to rules setup by my customers. GPL as a runtime might work (see linux), but not GPL in a library (that's why we have lgpl). It won't help that I as a consultant do have an license and that I would to the POC project - no way, GPL is a no-go here.

GPLv3 is ok with Apache 2 as far as I understood, here is the picture from the GPL site:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.png

So just go ahead and release your project under the Apache 2 license. You should be able to use GXT and would not have to distribute you code for your web application users.

zaccret
13 May 2008, 1:25 AM
And wery good widgets are coming up in gwt incubator
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/w/list
And these will be available soon. (We can also try these by grabbing truck)


incubator seems to be a good job, but there are only a few existing widgets, and styles/themes are really missing.

visumagic
14 May 2008, 4:18 AM
incubator seems to be a good job, but there are only a few existing widgets, and styles/themes are really missing.

Yes it's true. Initially when I started my project , I was trying to apply my own styles by grabbing styles from Google Reader/Google Groups....These styles are very simple and good looking. Mostly curved edges and simple shadows are playing. That time gwt-ext was not
so helpful for me (Again I need to depend on ext-and which is heavy java script)
But suddenly I found MyGWT which exactly matches my requirement. So I started using. Unfortunately MyGWT became gxt.
GWT is a wonderful framework, which is free open source. But gxt is also excellent but came into commercial line. If you code in gxt ,surely you will miss the beauty of GWT,you will price GXT rather GWT because 90% of GXT components are customized on GWT-Widget. And now I'm dependent on ext again.

I think most of us have similar experience. And soon I want to start open source framework which never going to be commercial and which talks about styles only.Most of us need simple styles (like google products ),and no need of glassy looks.
Please share your ideas on this.

thanks
raghunath.