ExtJS licencing

Sam Liddicott sam at liddicott.com
Fri Nov 13 10:25:26 UTC 2009

* Alex Hudson wrote, On 13/11/09 10:13:
> Sam,
> On 13/11/09 10:02, Sam Liddicott wrote:
>> The trouble is that these terms are non-recursive; if I receive JpGraph
>> via the QPL [http://qt.nokia.com/doc/4.0/qpl.html] from someone other
>> than Mr JpGraph, then I receive the rights that the QPL grants, which
>> the conveyor was granted by not using it commercially.
>> Having received those rights, I can now use the software commercially,
>> without paying for a commercial license (and perhaps may not even
>> realise this expectation!).
> I wouldn't be so sure of your ground. 

I perhaps gave the wrong impression - speaking personally, I was so 
unsure of my ground that I didn't use the software at all.

> I'm not sure why the person giving 
> you a copy of the software would be your licensor, unless they have some 
> kind of sub-license which allows them to do that.
> The license has to come from a rights holder after all, otherwise it is 
> worthless (giving someone rights for use/distribution/etc. doesn't give 
> that licensee an automatic ability to pass those rights on).

No, but the QPL under which which the rights holder licensed to a 
non-commercial user does give that use to pass the QPL rights on.

> I don't see 
> anywhere in those licenses where the copyright holder is giving you 
> permission for commercial use: the license texts themselves don't give 
> you that.

The QPL under which I might receive JpGraph from a 3rd party grants me 
permission to run the software making no remark on the commercial nature 
of the use.

The point is that the clause on commercial use is only applied at the 
primary point of distribution, and an either-or choice is made on the 
license. The QPL does not carry that commercial restriction through the 
distribution chain.


More information about the Discussion mailing list