Open Source License Exception for Extensions

[jack.slocum]

We are currently seeking community input on the Open Source License Exception for Extensions that is in draft status.

We are mainly seeking input on content (not legality) before sending it back to the attorneys for final review.

http://extjs.com/products/ux-exception.php

Thanks for any input,

Jack

[evant]

On first look, at the additional grants, the only thing that jumps out is item 1.

Since an extension is to somehow extend the functionality of the library, it's quite possible that the extension will contain code (if only small fragments), specifically in the case where the author is looking to override behaviour in only a certain circumstance.

I realise that (1) is being used to prevent someone releasing Ext itself as an extension.

Thanks.

[jack.slocum]

Yes, that's a difficult one. Your logic is right on and I'm not sure of the best way to tackle it. Maybe others will have ideas?

[jgarcia@tdg-i.com]

I agree with evant.

I sometimes create extensions, which add functionality to the Ext OOTB, but require some custom code to be injected.

Use case:

I'm working on publishing a modified version of fx.frame(). Modifications are changes to the core code, but may not change it 100%.

Also, are you going to add 'overrides' and 'plugins' to this as well?

[dawesi]

2.1 Your Extension does not contain any Code or modified Code from the Library.

Hmm... most extensions contain excerpts of the orignal

2.3 You include PROMINENT notice in EVERY location you display the license information for your Extension that it uses the Library, the Library is distributed under the terms of the GPL v3 and include a link to http://extjs.com/license.

You could provide a javascript widget that pulls this info into our pages so the wording is correct. This could also allow you to select a licence using a tool to create the script for your extension.

2.4 You distribute the full source code for your Extension without obfuscation of any kind.
2.5 Your Extension can reasonably be considered to be adding to or modifying standard functionality of the Library for software development purposes and not an independent and separate Application in itself.

With 2.4, Does this include any application that we create also as every application is really and extension of ExtJS or does 2.5 cover this?

With 2.4 - does this also mean you can't sell your extensions unless you get a commercial license?

[dawesi]

I'm also wondering what effect Australian copyright law might have on extensions developed in Australia which states that copyright holders have the right to determine who can distribute any work they produce at any time, an area of law GPL3 protect.

Also what about sites that 'distribute' extensions (most developers have them)... how does this effect distribution of extensions, or donations for extensions, or support licenses for extensions (like the one you use for extjs) I'm assuming that selling a user extension or having a support agreement for an extension is also out of the question? What is the position on these?

Comment: why don't you distribute your ExtJS graphics as a theme with another license and just include a basic theme with the library? That way you can have whatever license you want on your theme? Or can you?

Also themes are exempt (as far as I can tell) from the GPL3 license. Does this mean it is ok to sell a theme? (assuming answer is yes)

[jack.slocum]

Originally Posted by dawesi

2.1 Your Extension does not contain any Code or modified Code from the Library.

Hmm... most extensions contain excerpts of the orignal

2.3 You include PROMINENT notice in EVERY location you display the license information for your Extension that it uses the Library, the Library is distributed under the terms of the GPL v3 and include a link to http://extjs.com/license.

You could provide a javascript widget that pulls this info into our pages so the wording is correct. This could also allow you to select a licence using a tool to create the script for your extension.

2.4 You distribute the full source code for your Extension without obfuscation of any kind.
2.5 Your Extension can reasonably be considered to be adding to or modifying standard functionality of the Library for software development purposes and not an independent and separate Application in itself.

With 2.4, Does this include any application that we create also as every application is really and extension of ExtJS or does 2.5 cover this?

With 2.4 - does this also mean you can't sell your extensions unless you get a commercial license?

I don't really have a solution for 2.1. I am open to suggestions. It can't just be removed though. See evants post (1st reply).

2.3
We will create some boilerplate text. Thanks.

2.4
Applications are not covered under this exception as per 2.5. You can sell even GPL code, but the license has to be FLOSS license which makes it kind of pointless. We are planning on an Ext Marketplace at some point that will allow for commercial licensing but that a bit down the line.

I would imagine the GPL is valid in Australia else it would have been addressed in v3 but who knows.

[jack.slocum]

Also, are you going to add 'overrides' and 'plugins' to this as well?

These are covered under the definition of Extension.

[j_johnso]

My concern with this is that it seems to only apply to ux components. I was in the process of creating an open source plugin-based framework that would assist with data access and persistance on the server, as well as allowing easy integration with Ext.

The idea with the framework is that data storage/retrieval would be handled automatically based on the plugin config. I am also considering automatically generating the data store code and code for simple communication to load/store data from the gui side. These plugins would also include gui portions to be displayed in a simple, possibly "Outlook-like" web ui; the ui using Ext, of course.

I would like to see frameworks like this include in the exception. I believe that such frameworks would greatly help those developing asp.net applications with Ext and encourage others to use Ext, with them possibly buying a commercial license.

I have included some more information about my particular case below.

I would like to release under the more permissive Apache 2.0 license. Before the license change, my plan was to distribute my application along with instructions on how to obtain the Ext library.

My belief is that I can still do this, even though Ext is under the GPLv3. Even if this is not correct, my belief is that because the framework will work with version 2.0.2 or 2.1, it is not tied to a GPL'ed library, and is therefore not required to be released under the GPL. However, I would also like to respect your wishes though, as Ext is your creation. I would like to see this exception so that developers creating frameworks like this one would have your blessing to do so.

[jack.slocum]

j_johnso,

The second exception sounds like it would be more applicable in your circumstances because you are creating an application. Please stay tuned for that exception. More info here:

http://extjs.com/blog/2008/04/27/ope...or-extensions/

Jack