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.
"Open source" doesn't mean you can see the source code, it means you are also free to copy, modify and redistribute. And just because you can see it doesn't mean you have the right to take it.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
I imagine that it's down to the difference between being able to see the source code and being legally/contractually/whatever-ly able to modify or distribute the source code, or implementing fragments of it in your own work.
I do agree with your point though; trying to implement JS as a closed-source implementation is an exercise in futility and frustration. Mind you that's pretty much my stand on most software: open source is probably the most efficient way forward.
Couple of things:
1) I signed up to use ExtJS on LGPL, moving to GPL mid-release cycle is bad form
2) What does GPL mean for a client-side interpreted library?
3) Why haven't the ExtJS team members addressed 1 & 2 more clearly?
They have a pretty strong community, and this move has been (IMHO) very poorly executed. If their intentions are good, they need to clarify what they intend to ensure the community doesn't fork or move to another library.
Looking for a Rails developer in Chapel Hill?
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.
No, it isn't. If you do something which is
then it the source is out there for anyone to see. Otherwise, not.
Open source means different things to different people.CastrTroy (595695), meet Humpty Dumpty. He's been hegemonising language for much longer than you have, and knows rather more about how to do it.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.