Re: powerEXT - Clarifications from the author

Well, your interpretation is incongruent with what ExtJS is saying on their Web site, but what do I care? I think you're pretty safe to use it as you like - not because your interpretation of the license or law is correct, but because it takes about $100K to prosecute contested copyright infringement cases in the U.S. So unless they have deep pockets, and they believe you're able to pay their attorney's fees, they won't come after you.

Nathan.



----- Original Message ----
From: Joe Lee <LeeJD@xxxxxx>
To: Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries <web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue, January 19, 2010 6:39:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WEB400] powerEXT - Clarifications from the author

Actually, since they distribute the software under an unmodified GPLv3 license they can't stipulate which license a given use falls under. The text of the license governs what uses are covered by that license and since the GPL explicitly allows in-house use they may not prevent me from using it in that manner. One of the terms of the GPL is that the software may not be distributed under a more restrictive license. If they wanted to prevent in-house use they needed to use a license other than the GPL. They may of course refuse to give me a copy of their software for any reason they choose. But since they have licensed and distributed copies of their software under the GPL, I don't have to get the software from them, I can get it from anyone who received it under the GPL and I am automatically granted a GPL license for the software. I can then do anything I want with it as long as what I do is authorized by the GPL, which explicitly includes in-house use.

Joe Lee

Nathan Andelin <nandelin@xxxxxxxxx> 01/19/2010 16:53 >>>

From: Joe Lee
Since they have chosen to license their product under GPLv3,
they are bound by its provisions, and since in-house use and
modifications are acceptable under GPLv3, they cannot force
you to use their commercial license instead of the GPL.

Since they hold exclusive rights to their software, they can stipulate whether "a use" of their software falls under GPLv3 or a commercial license. You're veering off in left field if you're saying that in-house closed-source use falls under the GPL, rather the Commercial license. They make it quite clear that proprietary closed-source development using ExtJS falls under the Commercial license.

The only reason you would be required to purchase a commercial license
is if you wanted to distribute an application containing ExtJS under a non
GPLv3 compatible license.

Well, your interpretation is not in-line with what ExtJS is saying on their license page:

http://www.extjs.com/products/license.php

This is not worth arguing over. For me, it underscores the fact that open-source licensing is a can of worms from the start - the perception is generally incongruent with the reality. For example, the GPLv3 doesn't even mention "in-house use" vs. "commercial".

Nathan.