Slashdot Mirror
ExtJS 2.1 AJAX Library Switches To GPL
Vandre writes "The popular AJAX library ExtJS released a new version today. There has been a huge controversy among the Ext community. Previously Ext had been accused of not being open source and trying to restrict its users' rights." It seems be boil down to whether the developers like or dislike the GPL, under which the library's new version is available -- the comments illustrate a long-standing divide when it comes to licensing. The foundation which oversees development explains why they've chosen dual-licensing at all.
How can JS not be open source?
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
This is a perfect example of how blurred the lines are when using extreme copyleft licenses in a distributed computing world.
The argument made by the ExtJS team is that by having a web page that includes the ExtJS library constitutes a close binding, and that thus your entire web back-end must be GPL'd. This is, on the face of it, ridiculous.
Web pages are specialized programs, written in HTML, JS, etc, that are compiled and run on the browser. My back-end is a tool for generating these programs, which I distribute for free to all users. My back-end does NOT use, require, or in any other way depend on the front-end libraries - rather, it works in harmony with them, and with an expectation that they behave in a certain way.
That the ExtJS team is making the first argument, and that they changed the license (from the LGPL) during a bug-fix point release, is a real indication that ExtJS is not a platform on which to build a long-term business. Especially given the lack of forward communication surrounding the change.
I've enjoyed working with Ext, and will probably stick with the LGPL'd 2.0.2 release for a while, but they have garnered a heck of a lot of bad will with this potential client.
Looking for a Rails developer in Chapel Hill?
It's their software so they have every right to release it under whatever license they want (and I've never heard of it or them before, so it makes no difference to me), but I find it... interesting... that one of their products (Ext GWT) is based on a product that uses the Apache License (the Google Web Toolkit), while the Ext product uses GPL.
If its LGPL, this would be nice.
Buf if its GPL, as a library, NO WAY IN HECK.
GPL is a horrible liscence for a library if you want people to use it in a variety of places.
Test your net with Netalyzr
Appears that maybe Ext's forums are /.'d already.
I've been actively participating in one of the licensing threads started on Ext's forums. Try http://extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33096 a little later, once the database recovers...
Since discussing licenses seems to be nothing new on Slashdot, maybe some "experts" from here can bring some light into the above thread.
Nevermind about my previous comment. Doing it as GPLv3 is genius!
By dual liscencing it as GPLv3 or a commercial liscence, commercial developers will ONLY touch the commercial liscence version. So they get paid, which is what they want.
Yet GPLv3 (instead of LGPL) is perfect. Its a "Poison pill" to commercial use of the library without buying the commercial version, yet gets the open source community behind you. Furthermore, by requiring copyright transfer for anything put back into the source tree, they get the work of the open source community to improve their closed source liscenced library.
Test your net with Netalyzr
... and with this we are at $60.1 billion!
Guys, remember the MySQL debacle a few years ago? They did EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
There's a distinction between Free Software, and Open Source which can be used for commercial purposes. Unfortunately, greedy bastards are hiding behind the GPL to extort their customers into paying them a fee.
As a developer for commercial apps, I want to use Open Source because (generally) it's safer and better designed and tested. But suddenly the rules change: We have to make our whole product open source? Give me a ******ing break. No, thanks, I'll stay with Google Web Toolkit, thank you.
And I'm considering moving away from MySQL as well.
I'm not a licensing expert, but here's how I read this:
Jack Slocum believes, even if users do not modify the underlying library code, any top-level application code must be GPL'd due to the distributed nature of web applications. The inherent act of pulling the client-side code down to the browser categorizes this as distribution, as opposed to the widely held view that distribution refers to, for example, packaging up a tar file of the complete app (including PHP/MySQL/etc.) and putting it up for download.
I've only been developing with ExtJS for 10 weeks now and have not completed my application. I planned to pay for the commercial license merely to support his efforts, not for any licensing advantage. Now I'm very much concerned whether I should be using this package at all - not based on the quality of the software - but based on the leadership instability and capricious nature of this licensing switch. As an engineer, I'm very much risk averse. I'm not going with a team I can't trust.
In the spirit of things done by MySQL in the past the Ext core developers have decided to change their license suddenly. There is another big problem here. They are also claiming the community can not fork because they added terms onto their license to restrict who was allowed to have 2.0.2 to under the LGPL. This is absurd and against the LGPL, but it is what they are trying to do. Technically anyone who meets their requirements and then distributes 2.0.2 can then hand it off as LGPL without their added restrictions. I really hope someone forks, but as a commercial user I am scared that it will not be possible keep using Ext, especially if they take action against forks.
For anyone who is missing the point, when this was LGPL anyone could use it and have their code under whatever license they pleased. Changes to Ext had to remain LGPL, but your own application could be anything. Now GPL is used, so your application must be under the GPL. Of course that doesn't require distribution in a lot of web app cases, but it does require the license to be GPL. In many businesses this is just not acceptable. Core Ext devs know this and are probably hopeful it will lead to more license sales. I am hopeful it will tear the community apart and force them to revert their decision.
I do believe it is acceptable for the core team to change their license on their code, but it is an extremely bad business practice to do it without warning. They have managed to alienate tons of their users. I see their anti-forking clause as the most dangerous thing to the well being of the community.
I was considering buying a commercial license to support Ext and the core developers, but this kind of bad business move makes me think it may be better to look elsewhere for JS libraries. I used to be a dojo user but when they switched to 1.0 and weren't reverse compatible I decided to abandon them completely. Their lack of decent documentation and examples was frustrating to which helped that choice. I am thinking now maybe trying to go to Dojo and help the community their may be a better route than sticking with Ext. I would be much happier with an Ext fork though. The quality is a little higher than Dojo. Dojo does have some big corporate backings and BSD license. I'm hopeful it will eventually evolve into something of more quality, but it really isn't there just yet.
From http://extjs.com/company/dual.php :
"""
we require that you do one of the following:
- Contribute to the continued development of the product by purchasing commercial licenses from Ext. This option secures you the right to distribute your application under the license terms of your choice.
- Contribute to the Open Source community by placing your application under an Open Source license (e.g. GPL v3). This option secures all users the rights to obtain the application's full source code, modify it, and redistribute it.
"""
So, all that someone needs to do if they use this lib without paying for it is distributing it under an open source license. Please note that the BSD, X/MIT, Artistic, etc licenses are ALL open source licenses and ARE legitimate licenses to use under these terms NOT only the [l]gpl's.
I decided that the license tries to be intentionally unclear -- even the "commercial" license. "Domains and sub-domains"? What if I'm distributing a non-open-source web application? And what does "developer license" mean? I mean, if people develop against the GPL3 version, can they deploy against the commercial version? Wouldn't that mean that any company could buy just one license and put it on the build-distribution machine?
The licensing model scared me away. Now I am extremely glad to have been scared away.
Ext looks to be a pretty good library -- but it's not for anyone who wants to know what's in the future of the development, and who hopes to not get screwed over.
The old license is here on the wayback machne:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070826144613/extjs.com/license
This states :
Open Source License
Ext is also licensed under the terms of the Open Source LGPL 3.0 license. You may use our open source license if you:
* Want to use Ext in an open source project that precludes using non-open source software
* Plan to use Ext in a personal, educational or non-profit manner
* Are using Ext in a commercial application that is not a software development library or toolkit, you will meet LGPL requirements and you do not wish to support the project
My project, which fits in with those requirements now has the source code, as covered by the LGPL - it clearly states that I received the code under the lgpl license. So I should be able to distribute derivatives under the lgpl. I've asked out legal to confirm.
No, unfortunately. They're being unclear, and it feels like its deliberate (though I wouldnt' make an actual accusation).
Its mostly just a very imaged explaination of their terms, but by looking at the devs comments in the forums, they're fairly clear: "We feel like anytime you use our stuff, you need to give back, either by giving us cash by paying for a license, or by releasing under an open source license your stuff, in our case, the GPL3"
The wording is really a mess, but when they say "an open source license", they are -refering- to the GPL3, not saying you can go out with any open source license.
I think we're soon going to find that this has all been loudly blown out of proportion:
.26, April 28th, 2008"
"Open Source License Exception for Extensions
Draft
http://extjs.com/products/ux-exception.php
Ext on Rails http://www.extonrails.com/