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

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

[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: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.