mjg59: Ext JS is some sort of Javascript framew

Matthew Garrett (

mjg59) wrote,
@ 2008-03-28 15:33:00

Entry tags:

advogato

Ext JS is some sort of Javascript framework stuff. I know nothing whatsoever about Javascript, but what interested me was the slightly odd license. If you're a non-profit you can have it under the LGPL 3.0, but if you want to use it in a library then you have to buy a commercial license for them. This seems at odds with my understanding of the LGPL, but anyway. I'm a non-profit, so I've downloaded it under the LGPL. Under my LGPL rights, I've put it up for download here. If you want to use it in a library, feel free to do so as long as you abide by version 3.0 of the LGPL.

Thanks to Decklin for pointing this out.

(Post a new comment)

	hub_ 2008-03-28 04:22 pm UTC (link)
	I guess it is another case of total misunderstanding of the (L)GPL licenses. (Reply to this)

	(Anonymous) 2008-03-28 04:45 pm UTC (link)
	LICENSE FAIL (Reply to this)

You are making a mistake
(Anonymous)
2008-03-28 04:47 pm UTC (link)

It's not that simple Matthew. Ext is not misinterpreting the LGPL, you are misinterpreting the Ext license.

Ext is not distributed under the LGPL license. They distribute it under their own license (note that every file, including license.txt points to their license, not the LGPL). Within their license they grant usage under the LGPL -terms- provided it's not being used in a product for software development. This means any text in the LGPL does not apply unless you meet their licensing terms first. This is the only way to legally "override" any LGPL terms that contradict with theirs. They have done their homework.

That also means any distribution you make the downloading party is still bound by their license, not the LGPL. So putting it up for download saying "LGPL" accomplishes nothing.

This is licensing 101. You should seek legal advice before you make such bold proclamations.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: You are making a mistake pjc50 2008-03-28 05:00 pm UTC (link)
	This is bizarre. Either it's LGPL or it isn't. If I mix it with some other LGPL code, does the resulting software have any additional conditions imposed on it? If yes, then it's not LGPL, and we have another bit of almost-but-not-quite free software. What are the authors of Ext JS trying to achieve by doing this? (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: You are making a mistake mjg59 2008-03-28 05:20 pm UTC (link)
	Nonsense. One of the terms of the LGPL is the right to redistribute under the terms of the LGPL. I meet their licensing terms (as I said, I'm not for profit) and, as a result, can redistribute under the terms of the LGPL. There's no other meaningful way to interpret their license. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You are making a mistake - (Anonymous), 2008-03-28 11:04 pm UTC

Re: You are making a mistake -

mjg59, 2008-03-28 11:18 pm UTC

Re: You are making a mistake - (Anonymous), 2008-03-28 11:21 pm UTC

Re: You are making a mistake -

mjg59, 2008-03-28 11:23 pm UTC

Re: You are making a mistake - (Anonymous), 2008-03-28 11:26 pm UTC

Re: You are making a mistake - (Anonymous), 2008-03-29 12:42 am UTC

Re: You are making a mistake - (Anonymous), 2008-03-29 12:58 am UTC

Usage vs. Distribution -

davyd, 2008-03-29 12:32 am UTC

Re: Usage vs. Distribution -

ewx, 2008-03-29 10:02 am UTC

Re: Usage vs. Distribution -

davyd, 2008-03-29 03:45 pm UTC

(Reply from suspended user)

Re: You are making a mistake
(Anonymous)
2008-03-28 07:31 pm UTC (link)

In addition to what Matthew said (the terms of the LGPL 3.0 allow redistribution under the LGPL 3.0), the LGPL 3.0 also inherits GPL 3.0 clause 7, which says:

All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: You are making a mistake
(Anonymous)
2008-04-23 08:53 pm UTC (link)

My dear anonymous, I am afraid you are the one misinterpretting. Please go read the GPL/LGPL and see if you still believe that. Ext is very much within their right to add any terms that they want on the initial distribution. They can say "This file can only be downloaded by White Protestants who were born on a Tuesday." That is well within their right. The way they wrote it one the "White Protestant" obtains the software they have it under the LGPL. The LGPL clearly says no other terms can be bound (with exceptions that Exts terms aren't qualified to meet.) So, now the "White Protestant" who obtained a copy can go and make it available under the LGPL to anyone. They can give it to a "Black Catholic" and then the "Black Catholic" is only bound under the LGPL and not the original distribution terms given to the "White Protestant."

I have been wrong before, and I may be wrong again, but I am fairly certain in this case I am not. I can quote individual lines of the LGPL/GPL that support my view of this. You should be able to find them easily enough. Can you explain to me why the lines in the GPL/LGPL that state other terms can be removed don't apply? It is my view that if they really apply then it never was distributed under the LGPL/GPL and the license itself prohibits it from being called a GNU license.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You are making a mistake - (Anonymous), 2008-04-27 02:44 pm UTC

Re: You are making a mistake - (Anonymous), 2008-04-28 02:34 pm UTC

(Reply from suspended user)

	covertmusic 2008-03-28 05:05 pm UTC (link)
	jQuery is eating everyone else's lunch anyway. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	brokenhut 2008-03-28 05:33 pm UTC (link)
	I thought that had been rebranded as drinking their milkshake? ;-) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)

	(Anonymous) 2008-03-28 08:12 pm UTC (link)
	Ah the blanket statement fanboys. They are so cute! Anyhow, extjs is really really good, and very fast, so it's good that this issue is brought up. If it had been a crappy library I wouldn't have cared. :) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

covertmusic, 2008-03-28 09:44 pm UTC

(Reply from suspended user)

be very careful

joe_buck
2008-03-28 06:45 pm UTC (link)

They are the copyright holder, they get to set the terms. Clearly they do not intend to distribute under the LGPL, which they are deeply confused about.

I suggest bouncing the thing back to them and ask them to state their license terms clearly, and I also warn everyone into thinking that the license is LGPL for everyone because they messed up. It doesn't work that way, and if you assume that you can really use their code under the LGPL under these circumstances you're asking for legal trouble.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: be very careful
(Anonymous)
2008-03-28 07:52 pm UTC (link)

Actually, the 3.0 versions of the GPL and LGPL *do* work that way. If you attempt to license software under the GPL 3.0 or LGPL 3.0 with additional restrictions, other than those permitted by GPL 3.0 clause 7, then GPL 3.0 clause 7 gives people permission to remove your additional restrictions. And in any case, this software doesn't actually do even that; they don't say "LGPL 3.0 with additional restrictions"; they say "If $FOO, you can use the LGPL 3.0", and the LGPL 3.0 gives permission to redistribute under the LGPL 3.0 independently of any license wrapped around it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: be very careful - (Anonymous), 2008-03-28 10:58 pm UTC

Re: be very careful -

ewx, 2008-03-28 11:05 pm UTC

Re: be very careful -

mjg59, 2008-03-29 07:21 pm UTC

Re: be very careful - (Anonymous), 2008-03-29 07:29 pm UTC

	I read this differently (Anonymous) 2008-03-28 07:36 pm UTC (link)
	I don't read it as them saying you must use a commercial license for commercial use. I read it as them saying that there is a commercial license available if for some bizarre reason you want one. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: I read this differently (Anonymous) 2008-03-28 11:31 pm UTC (link)
	I'm an Ext developer; using it for 1 1/2 years. Buying a commercial is a value-add -- you get access to premium forums and guaranteed quick responses from the core team. Ext is fabulous. so is Jquery. Chris Scott www.resistorsoftware.com (Reply to this) (Parent)

It's classic dual licensing

labnotes.org
2008-03-28 11:22 pm UTC (link)

This is typical dual licensing which the (L)GPL allows and many companies use for their software. ExtJS is not breaking or inventing new rules here, MySQL is another well known dual licensor.

Basically they provide the code under one of two licenses. The two licenses are mutually exclusive, you pick one, get the software under that license and use it as such.

The page you linked to is merely advisory. It recommends the commercial license for commercial usage, and from experience I can tell you most companies would consider a commercial license over an open source one when given the options.

They don't mandate you use the commercial license for commercial applications, as long as you can abide by the terms of the LGPL, everything is fine.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: It's classic dual licensing
(Anonymous)
2008-03-29 12:44 am UTC (link)

Correct (or maybe they updated the license terms since the post). Note the third category of people who "qualify" for an open source license:

"Use Ext in any application (including commercial) that is not a software development library or toolkit, you will meet LGPL requirements and you do not wish to support the project"

A little built of guilt trip there but totally within the boundaries of the LGPL.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: It's classic dual licensing -

James Henstridge [gnome.org], 2008-03-29 01:42 am UTC

Re: It's classic dual licensing -

mjg59, 2008-03-29 07:13 pm UTC

Re: It's classic dual licensing - (Anonymous), 2008-04-24 01:52 pm UTC

Re: It's classic dual licensing -

davyd, 2008-03-29 12:49 am UTC

	decklin 2008-03-29 12:51 am UTC (link)
	Ha! You are awesome. (Reply to this)

	mmmmh (Anonymous) 2008-03-29 01:45 am UTC (link)
	I think you can do that, but clearly you are not respecting their wishes. Which sort of sucks. (Reply to this)

Disappointing

jackvslocum
2008-03-29 03:16 am UTC (link)

I think before making such a post you should understand a little of the history behind the Ext JS...

The library was started on my blog around 2 years ago as extension to the YUI Library. For the first 8 months of the project that I worked on it full-time, I did so for little to no compensation. I did it out of a passion and love for what I was doing. Since I have a family with 3 children that was not going to work forever. With the growing popularity of Ext, I decided to form Ext JS, LLC to offer support and commercial licenses. At that time there it was discussed, publicly, in our community forums, about making the library only available under a commercial license for commercial use. I was leaning towards offering it under GPL and a commercial license.

After much discussion we decided instead to release it under a license that was less restrictive than the GPL and one that offered the most people the ability to continue using it as they were. At the same time, I was forming a business and as a business, I needed to ensure that others would not be able to just take the library that I had invested so much time, effort and most of my savings into and create libraries that would compete with us using our own work.

That's where the Ext license was born. It's purpose was to serve as an intermediate license that all our code would be distributed under. That license would have the ability to grant additional terms based on the criteria set forth in it. We had two goals for this license: a) make it easy to understand (we didn't want to send everyone to an attorney in order to use the library) and b) if it did go to an attorney try to give it terms that an attorney will be familiar with. I believe the Ext license accomplishes both those things. It's easy to read, and the open source terms it grants are a very common open source license, the LGPL. Our I.P. council is very well known and very well respected and I imagine they gave us sound advice in helping us achieve this goal.

Despite my effort to keep Ext freely available to as many people as possible it seems that some people in the open source community (like you) would be happier instead with a GPL/commercial license model which would be more standard and "acceptable" but much more restrictive than our current license. Maybe you don't agree with that choice, but that was our choice. Our goal was to make a license that the developers that use Ext are happy with not someone who (in your own words) knows "nothing whatsoever about Javascript" and will probably never use Ext.

In the end though, you can NOT remove our license file from the distribution of our copyrighted software and replace it with your own. At best it is unethical, at worst it is endorsing copyright infringement.

Have a nice day and best of luck,

Jack Slocum
Ext JS Founder

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Disappointing

mjg59
2008-03-29 03:58 am UTC (link)

You can release it under the terms of the LGPL (like your license claims), in which case I can redistribute it under the LGPL. Or you can choose not to distribute it under the LGPL (which is not what your license claims), in which case I cannot. As a copyright holder, the choice is entirely up to you - and you're welcome to tell me that you have not provided me with the code under the license that you claimed to. But if it is provided under the terms of the LGPL, then the LGPL explicitly allows me to provide it to anyone else under the terms of the LGPL.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Disappointing -

jackvslocum, 2008-03-29 05:55 pm UTC

Re: Disappointing -

mjg59, 2008-03-29 07:09 pm UTC

Re: Disappointing -

jackvslocum, 2008-03-29 10:07 pm UTC

Re: Disappointing -

mjg59, 2008-03-29 10:52 pm UTC

Re: Disappointing -

jackvslocum, 2008-03-30 01:10 am UTC

Re: Disappointing -

mjg59, 2008-03-30 01:29 am UTC

Re: Disappointing -

jackvslocum, 2008-03-30 02:35 pm UTC

Re: Disappointing -

mjg59, 2008-03-30 02:38 pm UTC

Re: Disappointing -

jmtd, 2008-03-31 09:26 am UTC

Just one clear question ? - (Anonymous), 2008-04-18 06:04 am UTC

Re: Disappointing - (Anonymous), 2008-04-23 06:21 pm UTC

	Related links about controversy baijum81 2008-04-21 07:10 am UTC (link)
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ext_%28javascript_library%29 (Reply to this)

License Explained in Software Terms
(Anonymous)
2008-04-23 08:05 pm UTC (link)

Think of Ext's license as a "Decorator" for LGPL. Thus, under their license, they identify two separate scenarios. If you fall under the first, non-profit usage, then you can simply reference the LGPL. Otherwise, you are required to purchase a commercial license.

This is perfectly acceptable legal practice and really not deceiving at all. However, this may also be moot, because the latest version of Ext JS is now under "GPL" -- which means you now have a different choice: pay for a commercial license or make all of *your* code open source as well. Which really isn't much of a choice for most software development projects.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: License Explained in Software Terms
(Anonymous)
2008-04-24 01:49 pm UTC (link)

This would be a perfectly acceptable legal practice if the GPL allowed it. Unfortunately for ExtJS the GPL/LGPL state that terms can not be added. They can restrict the initial distribution to people that meet their terms, but once someone has it properly under the LGPL they have all the LGPL rights which includes the rights to remove other terms, the right to distrubte, and the right to use it for anything they please.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

I disagree with Jack
(Anonymous)
2008-04-23 08:39 pm UTC (link)

Sorry Jack. I think your legal advice was bad. Yeah, I'm not a lawyer, but I know how to read long boring legal docs, and the GPL/LGPL are fairly clear. They aren't even that long. Once you hand it off to someone under those licenses they have it under those licenses and are free of any other terms you tacked on. There are a few exceptions for certain types of terms you may add, but attempting to prevent forks or allow usage a certain way is definitely not one of them.

According to the GPL/LGPL you can't call your license that if you are adding other terms. You have made a mistake, and I can sympathize with that. Lawyers make mistakes, and bad legal advice can be devastating.

What happens now? I would hope that if someone forked they would win the argument in court because the LGPL is pretty clear that they have the right to fork and they have the right to ignore other terms that aren't part of the LGPL.

Still, I feel for you. You are trying to do what you think is right, but a mistake was made. Please though, check with another lawyer and be honest with the community. We are calling you on this and your repeated anti-forking statements sound like FUD to us. Your license change without proper warning on a point release has pissed us off. I have two notable projects that were being converted to Ext. One from Dojo, and another just from straight JS. Both of the Ext conversions are now on hold. I would be very willing to be the one to setup a fork on sourceforge, but lucky for you I work for a company that wouldn't want me doing that, and so I'm stuck being a bystander.

I am tempted to convince one of my projects to go with a commercial license. That was my original intent. Unfortunately, this rash business decision makes the viability and reliability of your business very questionable. It makes alternate projects that are clearly open with large communities seem much more reasonable. I hope you clear this up. I like your project enough to use it and purchase licenses where appropriate, but this recent action and your responses (which I, and much the community view as misinformed) make sticking with Ext a lot harder. Please clear this up for us. The OSS community will always call FUD and other nonsense. I don't believe you are intentionally spreading FUD, but even if you are misinformed and misunderstanding the technicalities of the licenses you chose it is your responsability to figure that out and speak clearly about it. Changeing the license was a very dangerous decision. I wish you luck, but if you don't start speaking more clearly and more openly you are likely to lose a lot of your community and customers to competing projects and very possibly a fork.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: I disagree with Jack (Anonymous) 2008-04-23 09:18 pm UTC (link)
	That's a lot of opinion from "Anonymous". I wouldn't mind seeing a reply to what you are saying, but I doubt you'd get one unless you can muster up the courage to leave a name. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: I disagree with Jack - (Anonymous), 2008-04-24 01:40 am UTC

Re: I disagree with Jack -

posta07.myopenid.com, 2008-04-29 02:30 pm UTC

Re: I disagree with Jack - (Anonymous), 2008-04-29 05:18 pm UTC

	I am very confused (Anonymous) 2008-04-24 01:58 am UTC (link)
	I have the following scenario: we are building a commercial software and its user interface uses ExtJS. It is not sold as a library or derivative work, it is just one of the pieces of the entire software (which is a web application with server-side coding and so forth). Do I have to purchase a commercial license from ExtJS LLC to do that? (Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: I am very confused
(Anonymous)
2008-04-24 04:25 am UTC (link)

It is a little confusing.

Your application's client can use the current GPL version of Ext in which case the client would have to be GPL. If the client and server are tightly integrated you risk them being seen as a single program and it is possible the server would also have to be made GPL. Doing things like having the server dynamically generate JS code to create layouts, menus, windows, etc places you far into the risk area. This is fine though. Your code becomes GPLed. You still don't have to distribute it, but it still is GPL. There are a few questionable GPL issues where you are distributing the client source in order for the user to even be able to run it. This risks requiring the server to be opened, but I don't believe this is the intent.

As long as the client/server aren't too tightly integrated and dependent on one another you should be able to have a GPL client and a closed source server. It's dangerous territory though, and you need to be careful about crossing the line or risking copyright issues. For that reason many commercial apps would just buy a license.

The AGPL would make it difficult to run a server without opening the source. We should be careful. ExtJS may switch future releases to AGPL without any notice!

You can run the LGPL 2.0.2 version. This is tricky. The core dev for ExtJS says it wasn't LGPL unless you met their terms. Once you met their terms however, it was. They are almost completely wrong. But their intent wasn't for it to be LGPL without their terms. Still, it is probably acceptable to keep down this route and likely even meet their terms, but don't expect fixes or support or community or anything, unless there is a fork. Pray for a fork.

Look up other toolkits. Dojo is decent, but the docs and examples aren't there yet making it difficult to do a lot of things without digging through source code to find out what really is and isn't supported. Still, Dojo is under a very unrestricted BSD styled license and has a big community and big commercial support (IBM, for one.) It's going to be around. It's going to grow. And nobody has any power to make a devestating decision that could wreck the community and openness like was done here with Ext.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Forks
(Anonymous)
2008-05-02 04:45 am UTC (link)

OpenEXT: http://sourceforge.net/projects/openext/
Done with patches over 2.0.2 as an attempt to circumvent any possibilities of the oddities of the initial license terms getting in the way.

SuperEXT: http://sourceforge.net/projects/superext/
A fork of 2.0.2

Both are very early and so far seem to offer nothing over 2.0.2, but it's good to see some people starting to get the ball rolling.

(Reply to this)

(Reply from suspended user)

	LOL (Anonymous) 2009-05-03 01:34 pm UTC (link)
	Americans and their greed! (Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs