Hello,
I'm looking at ExtJS as a Javascript library for building UIs. It is dual licenced under GPL and a commerical licence.
http://www.extjs.com/products/license.php
Doing some research I came across one blog that suggests that the licencing model is harmful to Free Software
http://pablotron.org/?cid=1556
What is the lists opinion on this? Is ExtJS using the licence fairly and is it considered ethical to use the library based on the blogs criticisms?
Thanks
~sm
On 12/11/09 07:51, Simon Morris wrote:
Doing some research I came across one blog that suggests that the licencing model is harmful to Free Software
http://pablotron.org/?cid=1556
What is the lists opinion on this? Is ExtJS using the licence fairly and is it considered ethical to use the library based on the blogs criticisms?
I don't think the licensing model per se is a problem; having dual licenses is fine.
The main problem is their legal opinion on the GPLv3, that availability of runtime Javascript code and HTML interfaces using ExtJS is actually distribution of the application. This legal theory is probably most politely described as "esoteric".
However, it's pretty clear that their licensing terms are that you cannot use it with a non-free server back-end, which effectively means it's not really GPLv3'd.
I would suggest it's not really free software.
Cheers
Alex.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
The main problem is their legal opinion on the GPLv3,
By my reading of the article complaining, that's not the main problem of which they complained. Is that not what you mean?
that availability of runtime Javascript code and HTML interfaces using ExtJS is actually distribution of the application. This legal theory is probably most politely described as "esoteric".
However, it's pretty clear that their licensing terms are that you cannot use it with a non-free server back-end, which effectively means it's not really GPLv3'd.
I couldn't find this interpretation. Can you give us some specifics of what you mean here?
On 12/11/09 20:31, Ben Finney wrote:
Alex Hudsonhome@alexhudson.com writes:
The main problem is their legal opinion on the GPLv3,
By my reading of the article complaining, that's not the main problem of which they complained. Is that not what you mean?
No, I'm commenting on ExtJS's approach to licensing.
However, it's pretty clear that their licensing terms are that you cannot use it with a non-free server back-end, which effectively means it's not really GPLv3'd.
I couldn't find this interpretation. Can you give us some specifics of what you mean here?
http://www.extjs.com/company/dual.php
Cheers
Alex
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 08:15 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
However, it's pretty clear that their licensing terms are that you
cannot use it with a non-free server back-end, which effectively means it's not really GPLv3'd.
I couldn't find this interpretation. Can you give us some specifics of what you mean here?
What that page appears to say is that if you build a web application with ExtJS and distribute it for others to use then it must be under the GPL v3 or a similar "open source" license.
If you build an application and put it on your own site, i.e. just *use* it you wouldn't incur such obligation as far as I can see - since they're not using the Affero GPL.
I don't see where they consider use on a Web page as "distribution". However, if that was their intention they should probably have used the Affero GPL instead.
br Carsten
Carsten,
On 13/11/09 08:49, Carsten Agger wrote:
What that page appears to say is that if you build a web application with ExtJS and distribute it for others to use then it must be under the GPL v3 or a similar "open source" license.
No, it's not saying that. It's saying if you build an application using ExtJS under GPLv3 then you *must* distribute it (i.e., it's AGPL-ish).
The clear intent of the licensor trumps the language of the license, and their clear intent is that you do not get "something for nothing": if you use ExtJS, you must "pay" either for the commercial license or by contribution of code.
Cheers
Alex.
One of the more interesting cases I came across was:
JpGraph Professional Version If you plan on using JpGraph in a commercial context you will need to acquire the professional license. Commercial use is for example if you use JpGraph on a site to provide a service for paying customers or for example if you are using JpGraph in an intranet to provide support for internal business processes, i.e. in benefit for a commercial company.
In short, if you use JpGraph where you have an economic advantage (either through paying customers or improving internal business processes) this most likely falls under commercial use.
otherwise:
Software License JpGraph is released under a dual license. QPL 1.0 (Qt Free Licensee) For non-commercial, open-source or educational use and JpGraph Professional License for commercial use. The professional version also includes additional features and support.
The trouble is that these terms are non-recursive; if I receive JpGraph via the QPL [http://qt.nokia.com/doc/4.0/qpl.html] from someone other than Mr JpGraph, then I receive the rights that the QPL grants, which the conveyor was granted by not using it commercially.
Having received those rights, I can now use the software commercially, without paying for a commercial license (and perhaps may not even realise this expectation!).
I explained this to the author, who wasn't very interested.
Sam
Sam,
On 13/11/09 10:02, Sam Liddicott wrote:
The trouble is that these terms are non-recursive; if I receive JpGraph via the QPL [http://qt.nokia.com/doc/4.0/qpl.html] from someone other than Mr JpGraph, then I receive the rights that the QPL grants, which the conveyor was granted by not using it commercially.
Having received those rights, I can now use the software commercially, without paying for a commercial license (and perhaps may not even realise this expectation!).
I wouldn't be so sure of your ground. I'm not sure why the person giving you a copy of the software would be your licensor, unless they have some kind of sub-license which allows them to do that.
The license has to come from a rights holder after all, otherwise it is worthless (giving someone rights for use/distribution/etc. doesn't give that licensee an automatic ability to pass those rights on). I don't see anywhere in those licenses where the copyright holder is giving you permission for commercial use: the license texts themselves don't give you that.
Cheers
Alex.
* Alex Hudson wrote, On 13/11/09 10:13:
Sam,
On 13/11/09 10:02, Sam Liddicott wrote:
The trouble is that these terms are non-recursive; if I receive JpGraph via the QPL [http://qt.nokia.com/doc/4.0/qpl.html] from someone other than Mr JpGraph, then I receive the rights that the QPL grants, which the conveyor was granted by not using it commercially.
Having received those rights, I can now use the software commercially, without paying for a commercial license (and perhaps may not even realise this expectation!).
I wouldn't be so sure of your ground.
I perhaps gave the wrong impression - speaking personally, I was so unsure of my ground that I didn't use the software at all.
I'm not sure why the person giving you a copy of the software would be your licensor, unless they have some kind of sub-license which allows them to do that.
The license has to come from a rights holder after all, otherwise it is worthless (giving someone rights for use/distribution/etc. doesn't give that licensee an automatic ability to pass those rights on).
No, but the QPL under which which the rights holder licensed to a non-commercial user does give that use to pass the QPL rights on.
I don't see anywhere in those licenses where the copyright holder is giving you permission for commercial use: the license texts themselves don't give you that.
The QPL under which I might receive JpGraph from a 3rd party grants me permission to run the software making no remark on the commercial nature of the use.
The point is that the clause on commercial use is only applied at the primary point of distribution, and an either-or choice is made on the license. The QPL does not carry that commercial restriction through the distribution chain.
Sam
On 13/11/09 10:25, Sam Liddicott wrote:
I wouldn't be so sure of your ground.
I perhaps gave the wrong impression - speaking personally, I was so unsure of my ground that I didn't use the software at all.
Yeah, probably wise. There are an increasing number of these "standard license under certain conditions" set-ups in use, which I think is entirely unclear and unhelpful.
The license has to come from a rights holder after all, otherwise it is worthless (giving someone rights for use/distribution/etc. doesn't give that licensee an automatic ability to pass those rights on).
No, but the QPL under which which the rights holder licensed to a non-commercial user does give that use to pass the QPL rights on.
Actually, I don't think it does. There is no sub-license, so you cannot license it to others yourself. There is also no automatic license clause which makes it clear that the original licensor grants an automatic license to recipients under solely QPL terms. (the GPL, as an example, is *much* clearer on this point).
Usually, having a license text like this gives you in affect an automatic license, but the problem here is that this isn't the complete license: it's missing the restriction on use clause that the original distributor had. It's corrupt, and conflicted.
Saying there is no usage restriction relies on an argument that the incomplete license included with distribution trumps the license as offered originally. I think that's a tough argument to make stick; it's possible it would, but I wouldn't like the odds.
Cheers
Alex.
* Alex Hudson wrote, On 13/11/09 10:40:
On 13/11/09 10:25, Sam Liddicott wrote:
I wouldn't be so sure of your ground.
I perhaps gave the wrong impression - speaking personally, I was so unsure of my ground that I didn't use the software at all.
Yeah, probably wise. There are an increasing number of these "standard license under certain conditions" set-ups in use, which I think is entirely unclear and unhelpful.
The license has to come from a rights holder after all, otherwise it is worthless (giving someone rights for use/distribution/etc. doesn't give that licensee an automatic ability to pass those rights on).
No, but the QPL under which which the rights holder licensed to a non-commercial user does give that use to pass the QPL rights on.
Actually, I don't think it does.
We may have to disagree, I'm just giving my reasons here:
There is no sub-license, so you cannot license it to others yourself.
So althought clause 2 says: 2. You may copy and distribute the Software in unmodified form provided that the entire package, including - but not restricted to - copyright, trademark notices and disclaimers, as released by the initial developer of the Software, is distributed.
It doesn't in any way mean the person who receives it has permission to also distribute it what they receive?
4. You may distribute machine-executable forms of the Software or machine-executable forms of modified versions of the Software, provided that you meet these restrictions:
a. You must include this license document in the distribution.
b. You must ensure that all recipients of the machine-executable forms are also able to receive the complete machine-readable source code to the distributed Software, including all modifications, without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer, and place prominent notices in the distribution explaining this.
c. You must ensure that all modifications included in the machine-executable forms are available under the terms of this license.
..and it is PHP - a scripting language, grants me permission to distribute machine executable forms of modified software - which is the source!
There is also no automatic license clause which makes it clear that the original licensor grants an automatic license to recipients under solely QPL terms. (the GPL, as an example, is *much* clearer on this point).
1. You are granted the non-exclusive rights set forth in this license provided you agree to and comply with any and all conditions in THIS license....
(my emphasis), and point 4 above
Usually, having a license text like this gives you in affect an automatic license, but the problem here is that this isn't the complete license: it's missing the restriction on use clause that the original distributor had. It's corrupt, and conflicted.
I think such cases can occur, but I think it did not occur here, more below:
Saying there is no usage restriction relies on an argument that the incomplete license included with distribution trumps the license as offered originally.
There isn't an originally offered license, it's a choice of two licenses, without the requirement to offer the same choice.
I think he explicitly (yet accidentally) gives non commercial users the rights to start a QPL distribution chain, without having to apply the commercial test.
I think that's a tough argument to make stick; it's possible it would, but I wouldn't like the odds.
Nor did I. I felt that the author had singularly failed to achieve his intent, but I knew what he meant; but people used to dealing with QPL software may accept a distribution from someone and justifiably act not in accordance with the authors wishes.
Anyway, we may disagree, certainly we agree that the situation is dodgy, and I appreciate your opinion.
Sam
On 13/11/09 11:58, Sam Liddicott wrote:
We may have to disagree, I'm just giving my reasons here:
Yeah; I think we're both agreed it's extremely murky :)
But just to clear up the point I was trying to make:
There is no sub-license, so you cannot license it to others yourself.
So althought clause 2 says: 2. You may copy and distribute the Software in unmodified form provided that the entire package, including - but not restricted to - copyright, trademark notices and disclaimers, as released by the initial developer of the Software, is distributed.
It doesn't in any way mean the person who receives it has permission to also distribute it what they receive?
My point about being able to sub-licence is pretty specific. If you have a license, there must be a licensor. If the person you get it from has the ability to sub-license, then they [may be|are] the licensor; otherwise, it's the copyright holder. So what I was saying originally was that because the QPL has no sub-licensing rights (which are otherwise reserved), the licensor *must* be the original copyright holder.
And the original copyright holder isn't offering the QPL. They're offering the QPL with specific usage restrictions. I think it's unlikely that their distribution of the QPL text with the software somehow overrides their licensing wishes.
Cheers,
Alex.
* Alex Hudson wrote, On 13/11/09 12:09:
My point about being able to sub-licence is pretty specific. If you have a license, there must be a licensor. If the person you get it from has the ability to sub-license, then they [may be|are] the licensor; otherwise, it's the copyright holder. So what I was saying originally was that because the QPL has no sub-licensing rights (which are otherwise reserved), the licensor *must* be the original copyright holder.
And the original copyright holder isn't offering the QPL. They're offering the QPL with specific usage restrictions. I think it's unlikely that their distribution of the QPL text with the software somehow overrides their licensing wishes.
On reflection I think you are right. There is the danger that 3rd party recipients will never know this.
Sam
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
On 12/11/09 20:31, Ben Finney wrote:
Alex Hudsonhome@alexhudson.com writes:
However, it's pretty clear that their licensing terms are that you cannot use it with a non-free server back-end, which effectively means it's not really GPLv3'd.
I couldn't find this interpretation. Can you give us some specifics of what you mean here?
What text on that page gives you the above impression?
On 13/11/09 12:04, Ben Finney wrote:
Alex Hudsonhome@alexhudson.com writes:
What text on that page gives you the above impression?
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".
"You *must* contribute *all* your source code" - c'mon, it's pretty straightforward...
Alex.
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.
On Sat, 2009-11-14 at 08:29 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
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.
I've emailed them for clarification
Thanks
~sm
On Sat, 2009-11-14 at 08:29 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
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.
Ben was right - email from ExtJS
"Simon, Sorry for the delay. Yes, I believe you are right. The word 'use' is more appropriately 'distribute'. I'll pass that back to the web team. ~ Adam"
Thanks for all of the opinions on this subject
~sm
Simon Morris mozrat@gmail.com writes:
Ben was right
I'm happy to have helped.
- email from ExtJS
"Simon, Sorry for the delay. Yes, I believe you are right. The word 'use' is more appropriately 'distribute'. I'll pass that back to the web team. ~ Adam"
Thanks for all of the opinions on this subject
Well, the matter isn't really settled until we see what new working they come up with. I hope you can keep us informed :-)
* Ben Finney:
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.”
It's an interesting problem. In order to make ExtJS part of a web application, you have to distribute it. The web application needs to comply with the terms of the GPLv3 because it is combined with a work under the GPLv3, to create a larger program (by virtue of hyperlinks, they are also not separate). However, the whole web application is not distributed, only part of it, so it's rather unclear what the GPLv3 means in this context.
Florian Weimer fw@deneb.enyo.de writes:
It's an interesting problem. In order to make ExtJS part of a web application, you have to distribute it. The web application needs to comply with the terms of the GPLv3 because it is combined with a work under the GPLv3, to create a larger program (by virtue of hyperlinks, they are also not separate). However, the whole web application is not distributed, only part of it, so it's rather unclear what the GPLv3 means in this context.
Hence the perceived need for the AGPL, I suppose.
Simon Morris mozrat@gmail.com writes:
I'm looking at ExtJS as a Javascript library for building UIs. It is dual licenced under GPL and a commerical licence.
It's disingenuous for them to call only one of those a “commercial license”. The GPL positively encourages commerce; it's quite definitely a commercial license, and GPL-licensed software is sold every day across the world.
If they spoke about the GPL as a free software license, this distinction would be clearer: those who want to encourage recipients's freedom can choose the GPL, while those who want to restrict recipients's freedom can pay for the privilege of having that power over others.
Doing some research I came across one blog that suggests that the licencing model is harmful to Free Software
Reading that article, it's harmful only to *non*-free software. That is, the author is complaining that software licensed under the GPL (because of its copyleft nature) gives no assistance to those who want to derive non-free software from it.
But copyright holders who deliberately choose the GPL consider it a desirable feature of that license that the act of making non-free software is thwarted, while allowing the creation of more free software.
The rest of it is the usual “we want permission to redistribute the work under any license terms we choose, but we don't like others to use that same permission to redistribute under the GPL”.
What is the lists opinion on this? Is ExtJS using the licence fairly
As far as I can tell, the copyright holder has every right to redistribute their derived work under any license terms they choose — that's permitted explicitly by the terms of the license they received.
and is it considered ethical to use the library based on the blogs criticisms?
They're using that permission to redistribute under the terms of the GPLv3, whose terms I find eminently ethical. Permissive free-software licenses are fine, but I prefer copyleft licenses (such as the GPL) as *more* ethical.
* Simon Morris wrote, On 12/11/09 07:51:
Hello,
I'm looking at ExtJS as a Javascript library for building UIs. It is dual licenced under GPL and a commerical licence.
http://www.extjs.com/products/license.php
Doing some research I came across one blog that suggests that the licencing model is harmful to Free Software
http://pablotron.org/?cid=1556
What is the lists opinion on this? Is ExtJS using the licence fairly and is it considered ethical to use the library based on the blogs criticisms?
(Trying to head-off a flame war) the simpler question might be to find who considers it ethical and who considers it un-ethical - FSF members and fans tend to agree on a small set of ethical principles, and a smaller set of means to achieve or maintain them.
We may also consider where and when and it what ways it is harmful to free software and where and when and it what ways it is beneficial to free software - for such answers are not fixed against such a varying scope.
Some FSF fans an members will have broad or long views, and others will have short term or pragmatic (a very inflammatory word) views; there are many ways from A to B - some are preferred for their holiness and some are preferred for being actually traversable within certain constraints.
The answers to these points depend to a great degree on whose interests are being represented by the answerer. Sometimes it may be the interests of a real set of software users, sometimes it may be in the interests of an abstract composite software user. Sometimes it may be in the interests of getting a commercial body to make a single step towards software freedom.
My own short view is that those who buy such licenses support some development of free software, and that such a situation also restricts collaboration from those who don't want their contributions locked away like that.
I think it does not directly harm free software (only by effectively withholding deeper co-operation) but it may be seen to adjust the balance of the software eco-system affecting the decisions of others; i.e. such dual licenses present a "dangerous" middle-ground that is more attractive (making it all the more "dangerous").
As a harm, I think it is indirect - as a consequence of not directly supporting free software aims, and I think it can't be said to be more harmful that fully closed source although the pain may be felt more deeply through being inflicted by those who "are supposed to be friends".
I prefer to think of the author as offering a free-software version of an otherwise closed product and so consider it a net benefit, but perhaps it makes an only-free version less worth developing.
In short, if you want a decision to be formally "blessed" you will be better to either decide who you want to do the blessing or what it is you want to be blessed.
Sam
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:39:51AM -0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
My own short view is that those who buy such licenses support some development of free software, and that such a situation also restricts collaboration from those who don't want their contributions locked away like that.
I think it does not directly harm free software (only by effectively withholding deeper co-operation) but it may be seen to adjust the balance of the software eco-system affecting the decisions of others; i.e. such dual licenses present a "dangerous" middle-ground that is more attractive (making it all the more "dangerous").
As a harm, I think it is indirect - as a consequence of not directly supporting free software aims, and I think it can't be said to be more harmful that fully closed source although the pain may be felt more deeply through being inflicted by those who "are supposed to be friends".
I think there often is the harm to tell people they need to buy licenses if they want to use the software "commercially" (it's the case here and it was for Qt) or if they need support. This makes it look like Free Software could not be used commercially or for mission critical goals. I'd consider this a real threat as knowledge about Free Software still is pretty marginal in (higher levels of) enterprises.
I prefer to think of the author as offering a free-software version of an otherwise closed product and so consider it a net benefit, but perhaps it makes an only-free version less worth developing.
You also divide you user base (and such your potential developers).
Best wishes Michael
Michael Kesper mkesper@schokokeks.org writes:
I think there often is the harm to tell people they need to buy licenses if they want to use the software "commercially" (it's the case here and it was for Qt) or if they need support.
This makes it look like Free Software could not be used commercially or for mission critical goals. I'd consider this a real threat as knowledge about Free Software still is pretty marginal in (higher levels of) enterprises.
I agree this is a harm they're perpetrating, likely on purpose since it probably makes some customers think they have no option to sell a work covered by the GPLv3 and thus more likely to pay for a non-free license.
Interestingly, this harm isn't one that was complained about by the negative article the OP pointed us to.
I prefer to think of the author as offering a free-software version of an otherwise closed product and so consider it a net benefit, but perhaps it makes an only-free version less worth developing.
You also divide you user base (and such your potential developers).
If some of them were intent on making non-free software, the base was already split; this does nothing to worsen that.
* Michael Kesper:
I think there often is the harm to tell people they need to buy licenses if they want to use the software "commercially" (it's the case here and it was for Qt) or if they need support.
Wasn't this what kept MySQL afloat, the uncertainty of what terms apply ("GPL" or "non-commercial use only")?
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 07:51 +0000, Simon Morris wrote:
I'm looking at ExtJS as a Javascript library for building UIs. It is dual licenced under GPL and a commerical licence.
http://www.extjs.com/products/license.php
Doing some research I came across one blog that suggests that the licencing model is harmful to Free Software
http://pablotron.org/?cid=1556
What is the lists opinion on this? Is ExtJS using the licence fairly
and
is it considered ethical to use the library based on the blogs criticisms?
Here's my opinion, FWIW, only based on the blog story:
Licensing a library under the GPL *is* rather restrictive, since it means only applications under the GPL may use the library. Until recently, the Qt was under the GPL, which meant that any and all native KDE applications must be under the GPL and no other licensing was possible (unless you purchased a license or otherwise got permission from Trolltech).
The practise is common, however, and as far as software freedom goes there is no ethical problem in licensing a library under the GPL, since this means that only free software can be written using this library. Richard Stallman has even advocated this practise to ensure as many programs as possible end up being free software.
But yes, it does mean you can't write BSD-licensed code with ExtJS. But in that case, people who want their code to be under a BSD license always have the option of not using the library. For people who want their application to be under the GPL v. 3.0 (and thus free software according to FSF's definition) there is no ethical problem at all in using the library.
Hi Carsten,
Carsten Agger agger@c.dk writes:
But yes, it does mean you can't write BSD-licensed code with ExtJS. But in that case, people who want their code to be under a BSD license always have the option of not using the library.
You can write BSD-licensed code while uing a GPL licensed library. In fact you can license your code under every GPL compatible license[1].
As long as your license is GPL compatible you and everyone else can combine your code with GPL licensed code, e.g. also with ExtJS. example.
[1] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
best wishes, Björn
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 12:57 +0100, Bjoern Schiessle wrote:
Hi Carsten,
Carsten Agger agger@c.dk writes:
But yes, it does mean you can't write BSD-licensed code with ExtJS. But in that case, people who want their code to be under a BSD license always have the option of not using the library.
You can write BSD-licensed code while uing a GPL licensed library. In fact you can license your code under every GPL compatible license[1].
As long as your license is GPL compatible you and everyone else can combine your code with GPL licensed code, e.g. also with ExtJS. example.
My bad - thanks for clearing that up! This makes the notion of having a library under the GPL a lot more reasonable IMO.
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 16:14 +0100, Carsten Agger wrote:
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 12:57 +0100, Bjoern Schiessle wrote:
Hi Carsten,
Carsten Agger agger@c.dk writes:
But yes, it does mean you can't write BSD-licensed code with ExtJS. But in that case, people who want their code to be under a BSD license always have the option of not using the library.
You can write BSD-licensed code while uing a GPL licensed library. In fact you can license your code under every GPL compatible license[1].
As long as your license is GPL compatible you and everyone else can combine your code with GPL licensed code, e.g. also with ExtJS. example.
My bad - thanks for clearing that up! This makes the notion of having a library under the GPL a lot more reasonable IMO.
Just keep in mind that when you distribute a work that has GPL parts, the *whole* work needs to be distributed following the terms of the GPL for distribution.
Just a Rule of Thumb, I know there are dissenting opinions and interpretation for corner cases etc.. etc... :)
Simo.