Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
Where it says, "If you wish to use the open source license of an Ext product, you must contribute all your source code to the open source community".
That appears to be a poorly-worded “If you wish to derive a new work from an Ext product under the GPLv3, a consequence of that license is that any time you redistribute the new work you must make the source code of that work available to every recipient.”
Yes, it's a classic “what does “use” mean this time?” lawyer bomb, combined with the misapprehension of “must give source code to everyone” omitting to mention the “only to recipients when you redistribute” qualifier.
"You *must* contribute *all* your source code" - c'mon, it's pretty straightforward...
I don't think it's straightforward. I think it's poorly worded, a common misstatement of the GPL's effects.
I do agree with you that it's pretty easy for a perverse reading of that to interpret in a hostile manner, but I don't think it would be taken by a court of law that way. And, since it's not part of the license terms but only a statement of intent, I think the court would have much more “what is most sensible” leeway in reading it.
This could, I expect, be fixed by a (potential or existing) user of Ext products having a calm chat with them about the wording on that page, asking for it to be clarified in line with the actual effects of the GPLv3.