Re: powerEXT - Clarifications from the author

Hi Juliette,

Sorry about that. My comment about it being safe to violate a license was not meant to be taken seriously or literally. I became facetious because of the wacky incongruity between how open-source licensing is "perceived", as opposed to what is actually written.

On the other hand, I can't get over the irony of you making a point about the Software Freedom Law Center supporting ExtJS's commercial license, in this case. It's more likely that they would complain against ExtJS's having a commercial license, in the first place. The SFLC is bent on restricting "exclusive" rights, in favor of broad public rights. They would more likely side with the violator of the commercial license, in this case.

Nathan.




----- Original Message ----
From: Juliette Vaillant <juxecl@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries <web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue, January 19, 2010 7:45:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WEB400] powerEXT - Clarifications from the author

2010/1/20 Nathan Andelin <nandelin@xxxxxxxxx>

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.

I wouldn't advise breaking license restrictions in the belief that the

project can't pay to protect themselves. Open source licenses are defended
by the Software Freedom Law Center for one, an organisation that will fight
to uphold the open source project's copyright in court if necessary, at no
cost to the project.

Regards,

Juliette