ExtJS 2.1 AJAX Library Switches To GPL 57
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.
It's JS (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's JS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's JS (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Tell that to the Open Source Initiative: The Open Source Definition (Annotated) [opensource.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
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. [sundials.org] He's been hegemonising language for much longer than you have, and knows rather more about how to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's JS (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
The same way as anything else. Just because everyone can SEE the source doesn't mean they have the right to redistribute it. It just makes enforcing that closed-sourcedness highly impractical.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, certain projects like EXT GWT use ExtJS and "link" to it on the server side. Big issue here if you were trying to be closed source. At least they still offer a commercial license, but I feel like its very very "bait and switch"-ish tactic, ala big commer
Re: (Score:1)
Big issue here if you were trying to be closed source.
Very true!
And is the exact problem I'm running into. I've been working on a project for a year and been using Ext (and have migrated to 2.0 recently) and my company expects the project to be closed. Under the LGPL, it's fine. If I want to update to the newest POINT release (under GPL) I have to open the project up or be forced to purchase a commercial license. I'm not against to purchasing good software, but it does seem a little bait and switch.
Re: (Score:2)
"Commercial" and "free software" (as in GPL) are not opposite to each other.
The GPL is involved in lots of commercial projects. It's not as if it was a hobbyst thing. People work and make a living (completely or partially) on free software, GPLed or not.
I know it's not your point, but every time I see that false dichotomy, I feel the need to say it's wrong. Some times I have to cater to that need.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong or not, when refering to a product, I have to use that product's terminology, else there will be confusing when checking my statements against the reference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Write your pages, and then run them through an obfuscator. The obfuscator can change all of the function names to stuff like "fuction37", and variables to "variable89". It can strip the comments and whitespace. The end result will resemble a de-compiled stripped binary.
GPL + Web App = Confusion (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
If you DONT want the GPL version, you can pay them to get whichever terms you wish. Its right there in the page.
What? You wanted it free as in BSD? Well go ahead and code your own.
Re:GPL + Web App = Confusion (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Now, either he was misinformed, or he was intentionally misleading people to drive commercial sales.
Not a great move, either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care what his intentions were. They are distributing ExtJS under the GPL license and if I decide to use the ExtJS I will follow the license, nothing more.
And yes, he is either misinformed or intentionally misleading people.
And not only that.. if they decide to accept any GPL contributions from outsiders and keep on this charade, they will be in BREACH of the GPL license for putting extra restricti
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately for developers, the AGPL is easy enough to ignore [honeypot.net].
Re:GPL + Web App = Confusion (Score:5, Informative)
Previously [livejournal.com], 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If I do go and buy the commercial license, does that mean I cannot use any community developed addons, patches, or content since they'd be GPL'd?
My understanding of the GPL is that once something has been released under the GPL, derivative works cannot be close sourced even by the original license grantor.
Or am I completely off base here?
Consistency? Nah (Score:2)
GPLv3 and Apache are compatible. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
GPL or LGPL? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
MySQL deja vu (Score:2)
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 r
Slashdotted... (Score:2, Informative)
Ohh, sneaky... (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes! ExtJS developers seriously benefit from having access to my internal business logic! Now they can take my investment portfolio management code and add it as a main feature of ExtJS! How useful
If all they want
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to encode your business logic, you need to buy the commercial liscence.
Re: (Score:1)
GPL3 (if you're an extremist) has a huge hole known as web services (or googlization ... GPL software is used with every HTTP request made to google, but the requester has no GPL rights to the software). There was a lot of discussion, but most reasonable people don't see it as a problem.
Any javascript files will be infected with GPL by using ext, but anything on the server side is unaffected. (Ok, if you're sending back javascript that makes use of ext funtionality, maybe, but for xml/json/html/data, th
A serious rethink of ExtJS (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Of the client-side code, yes.
What I don't get is how he thinks that also applies to the server-side code. Tightly coupled or not, the GPL traditionally refers to things which are actually linked against each other -- for example, it is entirely possible to have a non-GPL'd program depend on, say, a GPL'd bash
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still not sure what this would change, unless you can argue that a code generation tool must be included under the same license.
At which point, where does it stop? Must all text editors be distributed under an open source license?
IANAL, but again, I find it difficult to imagine how code generators could be covered. I should probably go back and read the GPL, though, as I'm sure it says somethin
Very disappointed Ext user. Core says no forks! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
And no-one clicked a link in the summary... again. (Score:2)
"""
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 redi
Re: (Score:2)
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 li
When I first looked at Ext... (Score:1)
The licensing model scared me away. Now I am extremely glad to have been scared aw
Blown out of proportion? (Score:1)
"Open Source License Exception for Extensions
Draft
http://extjs.com/products/ux-exception.php [extjs.com]
Ext on Rails http://www.extonrails.com/ [extonrails.com]