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.

Comments

It's JS

[CastrTroy]

How can JS not be open source?

Re:It's JS

[Col. Klink (retired)]

"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.

Re:It's JS

[ricebowl]

How can JS not be open source?

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.

Re:It's JS

[Anonymous Coward]

To others, it simply means that you can see the source, and not that you have any rights to distribute or modify it (Microsoft). Huh? Microsoft have two OSI-approved open-source licenses *in addition to* their Reference license.

Re:It's JS

[Col. Klink (retired)]

> Open source means different things to different people.

Some people think the moon landing was faked. However, technically minded people don't debate either of these issues much. Open Source, despite its misinterpretation by those who don't know better or those who seek to spread FUD, has a very precise definition. "Open Source" means that the source code is available and can be freely modified and redistributed. Both BSD and GPL (and many others) meet these definitions and there is no controversy or misunderstanding among those who understand what Open Source means. No one who understands these things would assert that the GPL or BSD is Open Source but that the other is not. They might *prefer* one over the other, but they wouldn't say that the other is not Open Source.

Similarly, any moderately informed person should never assume that the fact that they saw the source code implies that they are free to copy, modify and redistribute it. Just because I can read the words printed in a book doesn't mean that I can violate the author of the book's copyright.

Re:It's JS

[Simon Brooke]

I know. I was just trying to start a discussion about the inherrent openess of Javascript, and to remind everyone that when you do program in Javascript, that the source is out there for everyone to see.

No, it isn't. If you do something which is

1. client side, and
2. on a public website, and
3. not protected by any user authentication

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.

Re:It's JS

[Col. Klink (retired)]

> Open source refers to being able to read source code and that's all.

Tell that to the Open Source Initiative: The Open Source Definition (Annotated).

GPL + Web App = Confusion

[bobetov]

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.

Re:GPL + Web App = Confusion

[bobetov]

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.

Re:GPL + Web App = Confusion

[GauteL]

If they wanted you to release source for developing a web application, they should have chosen the Affero GPL license

The standard GPL license only covers redistribution, and if you create a web application in PHP using ExtJS for the front end, your web application never gets distributed to the user.

Re:GPL + Web App = Confusion

[Bogtha]

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.

Previously, they were arguing that it wasn't LGPL3ed, they were merely distributing it under the LGPL3's terms, by which they meant that they could tag on anti-commercial clauses. The terms of the LGPL3 mean you can strip those clauses and redistribute as plain LGPL3 if you wish, which somebody did, and it upset them.

Essentially, they were name-dropping the LGPL and claiming open-source status when what they really wanted was a non-open-source freeware license. Of course, if they came out and said this, they'd have a lot of upset contributors who have been duped into contributing to something they believed was open-source.

This bizarre interpretation of the GPL3 to mean that all of your website back-end needs to be open-sourced is another game in this style. They don't actually want the GPL3, because that includes commercial uses. They want a license where they can do their very best to make commercial use unappealing, while still being able to name-drop the GPL3 and tell people it is open-source without too many people calling them liars.

Slashdotted...

[ziesemer]

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.

Very disappointed Ext user. Core says no forks!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.