Page 66 of 76 FirstFirst ... 16566465666768 ... LastLast
Results 651 to 660 of 759

Thread: License Change?

  1. #651
    dandvd
    Guest

    Default Basic questions in the FAQ please

    After three weeks and a 65-page thread, I still didn't find in the License FAQ answers to the following very simple questions, corresponding to very common ExtJS usage scenarios:


    1. I'm using ExtJS (unmodified) for a web2.0 app that makes money off things like ads and AdSense. Can I legally use the Open Source license?
      1. I'm using ExtJS (unmodified) for an internal company app. Can I legally use the Open Source License?
      2. I'm using ExtJS (modified) for an internal company app. Can I legally use the Open Source License?


    Thank you.

  2. #652

    Default

    After three weeks and a 65-page thread, I still didn't find in the License FAQ answers to the following very simple questions, corresponding to very common ExtJS usage scenarios:
    I would like to appeal to those users influential with the ExtJS team to urge them to address precisely this. So far I have adopted a "wait-and-see" approach, but I have already been asked to start considering alternative solutions, even if it might mean rewrites.

    It's not so much the issue that we now have to buy a licence, but we are seeing dissatisfaction and splits in the user community, ane recently very strong comments from people not even connected to the Ext project, and we need to consider the total community (vendor support, community support, user contributions and so on) to decide an on effective Web development framework.

  3. #653

  4. #654
    Ext GWT Premium Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    14

    Default More negative PR

    Quote Originally Posted by crafter View Post
    we are seeing dissatisfaction and splits in the user community, ane recently very strong comments from people not even connected to the Ext project
    I was surprised to hear this mentioned (negatively) on the Java Posse podcast (by far the most popular Java podcast), so this has been a PR disaster so far.

    Java Posse podcast #184, about 20 minutes in, mentioned in show notes here (http://javaposse.com/index.php?post_id=335433#)

  5. #655
    Ext GWT Premium Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    14

    Default Interesting interpretation on FSF site re GPL

    From, http://www.fsf.org/licensing/license...3VotingMachine

    Does GPLv3 require that voters be able to modify the software running in a voting machine?

    No. Companies distributing devices that include software under GPLv3 are at most required to provide the source and Installation Information for the software to people who possess a copy of the object code. The voter who uses a voting machine (like any other kiosk) doesn't get possession of it, not even temporarily, so the voter also does not get possession of the binary software in it.
    By the same analogy, the corporate user who uses a computer at work doesn't get possession of it, so the user also does not get possession of the binary software in it (and by association the source)? Anyways, this is all too complicated for me (not simpler than LGPL)...

    Yes, I could buy 5 licenses, but I already have a 500,000+ line code base orphaned in Borland Delphi 5, and not anxious to repeat the experience.

    In addition, the following sentence in the commercial license really bothers me, as I am not about to stop developing Javascript libraries, which I have been doing long before ExtJs was created:
    "You may not: a) use any part of the Software or Modifications or Your knowledge of the Software (or any information that You learn as a result of Your use of the Software) to create a product with the same or substantially the same functionality as the Software;"
    So if I enter into a commercial license, I stand to get sued if I release some code for any arbitrary Javascript grid, treeview or anything with "substantially the same functionality as" ExtJS. Might work for the average "Enterprise" developer who would not dream of doing such a thing, does not work for me. Again, this is so complicated...

    Sigh...

    Tony

  6. #656
    Sencha User Lobos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sao Paulo, Brazil
    Posts
    461

    Default

    "You may not: a) use any part of the Software or Modifications or Your knowledge of the Software (or any information that You learn as a result of Your use of the Software) to create a product with the same or substantially the same functionality as the Software;"
    I think you would need a software patent to enforce this. Basically what it is saying that if you use extjs at some stage in your life and then decide to create your own javascript framework that functions in the same way you are breaking the license - even if you code the whole thing from scratch.

    Although I don't like the license change, I have always respected the decisions made by Jack, but this in my opinion is going a bit far... even then how do you enforce it? LIke this?:

    Lobos commercial javascript clock uses json style object notation to define it's settings and since he has seen the extjs code and extjs uses json style object notation to define his settings he has violated teh license, how about prior art for this *pseudo patent*? I have looked at yui code and it is VERY similiar to how ext does things...

    sorry, but this is starting to get a little weird...

  7. #657
    Ext User
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    212

    Default

    I know this isn't something most people are willing to rest their bum on, but these scenarios - while completely valid concerns - would almost certainly never result in a successful law suit. There is NO way EXT has the resources to go chasing hundreds of developers, in 20-30 countries across the world to try enforcing some broad interpretation of the GPL. IP Atttorney's are expensive.

  8. #658
    Ext User DigitalSkyline's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Rochester, MI
    Posts
    461

    Question

    "You may not: a) use any part of the Software or Modifications or Your knowledge of the Software (or any information that You learn as a result of Your use of the Software) to create a product with the same or substantially the same functionality as the Software;"
    That's a good one... actually this is a lot like the non-compete clauses software companies make you sign when under the employment of said company. They are by and far unenforcable... and they are actually illegal in certain jurisdictions.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause

    I really had no idea the commercial license went so far ... looks lke the licensing issues with Ext are far worse then I thought. Good thing its unenforcable. Its really not a good business model when you have to start off by making threats like this against your potential customers. Whatever happened to "in good faith" ?

  9. #659
    Sencha User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Re: the commercial license, guys... it is a commercial license. The terms you're highlighting are fairly standard EULA terms for software. In fact, typical commercial EULAs are much more restrictive than ours. Our license grants you extremely broad rights to use Ext in just about any way you choose, with unlimited distribution, no royalties, etc. All it asks (in essence) is that you do not repackage and sell Ext (or an obvious rip-off) commercially yourself. It may or may not be enforceable in some jurisdictions, but I'm not really sure why you think it's somehow onerous or evil for that wording to be there...

    Again, it's the commercial license. If you'd like to copy and distribute your own version of Ext under the GPL, knock yourself out.

  10. #660
    Sencha User Lobos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sao Paulo, Brazil
    Posts
    461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brian.moeskau View Post
    (or an obvious rip-off) commercially yourself.
    This is not part of any standard eula that i have ever seen, this is more in the territory of patents. There is no way that you can enforce this without getting a patent and you are not going to get a patent cause of the prior art i mentioned before.

    If i were to code up something from scratch that worked and looked exactly the same as extjs there is no way that i would be bound by this clause. I am not about to do this, but it just seems strange that you have this in the license when it is blatantly un-enforceable and even a little stoogy (sorry), but ext is blatantly derived from yui and would not exist if that clause were a part of yui...

    I am just dead set against software patents, or anything that resembles them. they stifle innovation.

Page 66 of 76 FirstFirst ... 16566465666768 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •