Hello Everyone,
As some of you may already know, yesterday Ext LLC released Ext JS  
2.1 under GPL v3. But what some of you may not have seen was this  
section of their blog post about why they did so:

GPL License

Until version 2.1 Ext was released under it’s own license, the “Ext  
License”. That license granted usage (provided certain conditions  
were met ) under the LGPL license terms. The CSS and images  
(”Assets”) distributed with Ext before 2.1 had a license all of their  
own which was not open source compatible at all. We received quite a  
bit of negative feedback from some prominent members of the open  
source community about our license not being friendly for open source  
projects. Some even said Ext was not open source at all since these  
licenses did not offer the same freedoms that standard open source  
licenses offer. Since we have been an open source company since our  
inception, these comments and concerns struck home and we felt a need  
address the issue.

We are pleased to announce that all of Ext JS 2.1 is now available  
under the GPL v3. We anticipate this will allow broader usage in open  
source software and should make licensing questions and choices much  
easier. To help answer general questions people may have, we have  
added some useful pages to the extjs.com website: Licensing Overview  
and Dual Licensing Model.

I am pretty certain that 'one' of the 'some' in the phrase 'Some even  
said Ext was not open source at all since these licenses did not  
offer the same freedoms that standard open source licenses offer'  
refers none other to our own David Turner. And we've already heard  
from Abe that Cholmes' email about 'how the 'license not being  
friendly for open source projects'  could effect future development  
efforts at TOPP' was an example of why Ext LLC felt it was really  
important to revisit this issue and look into other licensing options.

I think we can all be very happy with the way that this turned out,  
and a bit proud of TOPP's role in helping it along.

Thank you all,
JA



On Apr 18, 2008, at 3:14 PM, Jacqueline Arasi wrote:

> Hello,
> I realized that Cholmes has now left town until April 28, and  
> although he has been handling the correspondence with the Ext  
> folks, I want to make sure we circle back with an update.
>
> When we reached out to Ext JS, we expressed TOPP's concerns in  
> detail-- particularly about how this might significantly impact our  
> Geo team's development path.   As you may know, an upcoming project  
> planned to create best of breed widgets for mapping (styling  
> layers, viewing and adding data, searching, turning layers on and  
> off) built on or working with OpenLayers and Ext.js. Without  
> clarity around the future of Ext.js licensing, it would not be  
> prudent to proceed as planned.
>
> Within a few hours, we received this reply from their licensing team:
> Hi Chris,
>
>    Thank you for your candid email.  I can assure you that we want  
> to work with the open source community.  In fact, we have been in  
> search of a current OSI approved license that will meet our needs.   
> I want to put your concerns at ease.  In the coming weeks, Ext will  
> be more open.  Please feel free to reach out and give me a call on  
> my cell: XXX-XXX-XXXX.  We are definitely interested in your  
> project's success, and feel you are doing great work.
>
> Warm regards,
> Abraham Elias
>
> Chris was able to speak with Abe directly, and learned that a  
> primary factor in their licensing matter was a concern about the  
> GPL's applicability to javascript. In their view, the GPL seemed to  
> assume it was being applied to code written in a compiled language,  
> even under the updated GPL 3. This belief prompted their adoption  
> of the Ext license that put field-of-use restrictions on top of the  
> vanilla LGPL, with the apparent objective being to grant the right  
> to use Ext.js in "commercial" applications but not in libraries or  
> toolkits: Ext.js could be consumed, but not subsumed.
>
> Chris connected Abe with David Turner and asked David if he could  
> shed more light on the GPL's applicability to javascript. David was  
> kind enough to clarify that the GPL was indeed considered  
> applicable to javascript by himself and others at FSF, and  
> generously offered both his own time and to connect them to folks  
> at FSF to help satisfy any lingering questions they may have. Abe  
> replied with his thanks and a promise to keep us posted on any new  
> developments. Abe sent this reply on April 11 (last friday), and I  
> am not aware of any correspondence with him this week. I did just  
> check, though, and as of today (April 18) the Ext license still  
> stands on their website.
>
> These are not utterly simple matters, though, and so I'd like to  
> give Abe some time for him and his team to look into things and  
> find answers that could lay their concerns to rest. However, I want  
> to be clear that I am not interested in asking you all to wait  
> indefinitely for some resolution.  I have sent Abe an email today  
> to request that, with Chris traveling for the next few weeks, he  
> also please include me on any email updates.
>
> I will pass news on as I receive it, and if we do not hear from him  
> within 2 weeks from today (May 2), we will have to start discussing  
> our options.
>
> Let me know if you have any questions.
> -JA
> !DSPAM:4004,4808f3ba310038362916074!

Attachments

text.html (text/html) 11.7 kB