Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: GXT and EUPL license

  1. #1
    Sencha User
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16
    Vote Rating
    0
      0  

    Default GXT and EUPL license

    Hi,
    there is someone who know if the EUPL license is compatible with the EXT-GWT open source license?

    This is a link to EUPL (European Union Public Licence) which is used in most of European research projects:
    http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl

    Thanks
    Federico

  2. #2
    Ext User
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2
    Vote Rating
    0
      0  

    Default EUPL compatible with the use of "EXTGWT"

    HI Frederico,

    You ask if there is someone who knows if the EUPL license is compatible with the EXTGWT open source license?

    I believe that "EXTGWT" (or GWT-Ext) is not a licence, but a library, which is licensed under the Eclipse Public License v 1.0 (which is an OSI approved copyleft license).
    The Eclipse Public License v 1.0 is indeed considered as a compatible license by the EUPL.
    Therefore, when this is compulsory to get freed from a license conflict, a derivative work combining components licensed under Eclipse v 1.0 and EUPL could be licensed under Eclipse v 1.0.
    In all other cases (for example when it is possible to license the various components separately), the EUPL is strong copyleft.

    More information on the EUPL on www.OSOR.eu

  3. #3
    Ext User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    159
    Vote Rating
    4
      0  

    Default

    GXT, like Ext JS, is under GPL v3 not EPL. See here

  4. #4
    Sencha User
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16
    Vote Rating
    0
      0  

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrice-E Schmitz View Post
    HI Frederico,

    You ask if there is someone who knows if the EUPL license is compatible with the EXTGWT open source license?

    I believe that "EXTGWT" (or GWT-Ext) is not a licence, but a library, which is licensed under the Eclipse Public License v 1.0 (which is an OSI approved copyleft license).
    The Eclipse Public License v 1.0 is indeed considered as a compatible license by the EUPL.
    Therefore, when this is compulsory to get freed from a license conflict, a derivative work combining components licensed under Eclipse v 1.0 and EUPL could be licensed under Eclipse v 1.0.
    In all other cases (for example when it is possible to license the various components separately), the EUPL is strong copyleft.

    More information on the EUPL on www.OSOR.eu
    Sorry, my bad English, I was talking about the library license.

    How have already replied jburnhams the Ext-GWT (or GXT) license is GPL v3 not EPL.

  5. #5
    Ext User
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2
    Vote Rating
    0
      0  

    Default GXT and EUPL License

    If the GXT license is only GPLv3, there is an issue: there is no compatibility between GPLv3 and EUPL (or any other copyleft license) for the time being.

    A mutual interoperability between EUPL and GPLv3 would be an interesting proposal (FSF accepting downstream compatibility from GPLv3 to EUPL, and vice-versa) but such idea looks still revolutionary for many people...

  6. #6
    Sencha User abe.elias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Posts
    407
    Vote Rating
    25
      0  

    Default

    http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

    I just checked OSI, and the EUPL is listed there.

    Can't we just add it to our FLOSS? The purpose of the FLOSS is to allow open source developers to use a license of their choosing. I'm not a licensing expert, but that was the motivation behind us creating it.

    If there's no opposition, I'll run it by legal and see if we can get it added.

  7. #7
    Ext User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    588
    Vote Rating
    1
      0  

    Default

    I would suggest that you take up such issues directly with ExtJS's management, and then pass it by your corporate attorney (you do have one, don't you?) before engaging in any for-money ventures involving any of the products.

    When faced with such an issue, I persuaded the company in question to send me a paper letter, on their letterhead and signed by a corporate official of apparent standing. (In other words, "an e-mail just won't do.") I then sent the letter to my attorney for his written opinion, the text of which makes explicit mention of the letter by title, date, signee, etc. Both are still on-file. (But the company in question ... is not. Go figure.) You need to be able to show due diligence, because a company that's in cash-flow problems (or... not) is very, very likely to sue. INAL, but it's just common sense to "get it in writing."

    Attorneys aren't that expensive. (Their biz is a lot like ours.) Just make sure that when you play golf with him, he wins.

  8. #8
    Sencha User
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16
    Vote Rating
    0
      0  

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abe.elias View Post
    http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

    I just checked OSI, and the EUPL is listed there.

    Can't we just add it to our FLOSS? The purpose of the FLOSS is to allow open source developers to use a license of their choosing. I'm not a licensing expert, but that was the motivation behind us creating it.

    If there's no opposition, I'll run it by legal and see if we can get it added.
    I think that can be a good idea. Let me know if you get any news.

    Thanks
    Federico

Posting Permissions

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