I don't think Jack is about restricting either and I still support him and his team completely. And personally I do not blame him for wanting control, because I am the same way over my projects, but there are other licenses that would fit the "friendly Open Source" approach that ExtJS wants to take without forcing current Open Source projects converting to the GPL or walking away from ExtJS (if they can't buy a license that is).
My Plugins: [2.x] Plugin : Grid HeaderForm (Ext.ux.grid.HeaderForm)
What about Open Source software which is already licensed under a more permissive license and wishes to incorporate Ext?
The reason people are unhappy about the licensing change is not because they want to "have their cake and eat it too"; rather, they're concerned about the change from a less restrictive non-viral license (the LGPL), to a more restrictive viral license (the GPL).
Last edited by pabs; 21 Apr 2008 at 11:50 AM. Reason: fixed typo, again
If somebody wanted to fork Ext, they would need to fork from 0.33 (BSD licensed). Good luck with that!UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES MAY YOU USE THE SOFTWARE (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE SOURCE CODE
THEREOF) AS THE BASIS FOR OR IN CONNECTION WITH A PRODUCT THAT CONTAINS THE SAME, OR SUBSTANTIALLY
THE SAME, FUNCTIONALITY AS THE SOFTWARE
That same license was the reason Ext version below 2.1 posed a lot of questions for open source advocates about viability for use within any open source project under any license. It would be difficult to incorporate in any open source project because the restrictions added were not compatible with 99% of open source licenses out there. That was one of the motivating factors of the license change.
Sencha Co-Founder, Ext JS Founder
Original author of Ext JS 1, 2 & 3.
Given the license change, how can Ext even include adapters for jQuery, Prototype etc. given that they are NOT GPL. For example, Prototype is MIT, so how can Ext decide to include adapters, along with the source code for projects like Prototype without automatically implying they must now conform to GPL?
Either Ext is not following their own policy OR they are now destroying the licenses of other non-GPL open source libs.
That is a prime example as to why the change from LGPL to GPL is beyond terrible. I question whether Jack/ Ext has thought about this and what the jQuery and Prototype people would say about it. I just do not see how Ext can distribute these other libs and the adapters or even allow them to work together without it sucking those into the vortex of GPL-hell.
There are (loosely) 2 classes of folks affected by this:
1) those who wish to pursue commercial aims and not buy a license.
2) those who wish to pursue non-commercial aims and not buy a license.
IMO, the move to GPL was aimed at the former group. or get off the pot, so to speak.
I'm japh, so I dig the artistic license, but I don't think everyone need be in sync with it.
(one might argue that's the main corollary of the artistic license ... )
I think the cake analogy is just as valid for the second group, albeit I don't
think this says anything negative about their motives. It simply is what it is.
Ext's authors have decided not to enable the second group who don't
wish to use the GPL. That's their story and they have every right to it.
My 2 cents ... clearly IANAL .... and my guess is YANAL ...
Just going to throw this out there, regardless of where you stand on the issue, I think that changing licensing models in a point release was a poor choice. It could have been handled better, and would have been more understandable when you released the next major release (3.0).
Straight to the point, It will be a cold-day in hell when I release 5+ years of server-side work to accomidate the new (open) license model. With that being said, my guess is I will still be in line for a developer license... perhaps with 3.0 (will depend on how much refactoring is needed)
I actually had planned on this regardless. But this midstream change means I'll have to stick with 2.0.x . Oh well, nothing much has changed with 2.1 anyways.