Re: powerEXT - Clarifications from the author

[Aaron Bartell <aaronbartell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Joe,

I can see where you are coming from concerning a in-house development staff
not distributing code and thus not needing open source their server side
work.  But what you are saying seems to be in contradiction to what Henrik
is saying.  Henrik, what are your thoughts concerning Joe's comments?

I am still leery of ExtJS because they seem to have
licence-change-diarrhea.  Who is to say they won't change again after
getting a lot of flack.

BTW, this is a good quick reference page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_JavaScript_frameworks

Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com
http://mowyourlawn.com/blog/


On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Joe Lee <LeeJD@xxxxxx> wrote:

> Fortunately for you, you don't need to look deeply at the license to find
> that you probably can use the code in your situation without worrying about
> "giving away" your application. The source sharing aspects of the GPL are
> only triggered by distributing the application that includes GPLed software.
> If your application is only ever used in-house, then the application has
> never been distributed and therefore the source does not need to be "given
> away". Now if you are creating the application as a contractor, and intend
> to retain ownership of the application, you would be distributing it to the
> company you are writing it for and would have to license it under the GPL,
> though even in that case the only people you would be required to give the
> source code to would be that company, of course they would be perfectly in
> their rights to give the code away to someone else.
>
> To quote the ExtJS open source FAQ
> http://www.extjs.com/products/license-faq.php#cannotdo
>
> "You can download the code base, install it, and modify it as needed. If
> you modify the code, we encourage you to contribute it back to the Ext
> community by contributing your modifications under GPL v3 in the Ext forums.
> Additional information is available in the official GPL FAQ.
>
> Please note that if you distribute your modifications, you will have
> obligations under the GPL v3."
>
> And from the GNU GPL FAQ
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
>
> "Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to
> the public?
>
>    The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any
> part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately,
> without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including
> companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it
> internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
>
>    But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the
> GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's
> users, under the GPL.
>
>    Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in
> certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release
> it is up to you. "
>
> Joe Lee