ExtJS licencing

Sam Liddicott sam at liddicott.com
Fri Nov 13 11:58:05 UTC 2009

* Alex Hudson wrote, On 13/11/09 10:40:
> On 13/11/09 10:25, Sam Liddicott wrote:
>>> 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.
> Yeah, probably wise. There are an increasing number of these "standard 
> license under certain conditions" set-ups in use, which I think is 
> entirely unclear and unhelpful.
>>> 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.
> Actually, I don't think it does. 

We may have to disagree, I'm just giving my reasons here:

> There is no sub-license, so you cannot 
> license it to others yourself. 

So althought clause 2 says:
     2. You may copy and distribute the Software in unmodified form provided
        that the entire package, including - but not restricted to - 
        trademark notices and disclaimers, as released by the initial 
        of the Software, is distributed.

It doesn't in any way mean the person who receives it has permission to 
also distribute it what they receive?

     4. You may distribute machine-executable forms of the Software or
        machine-executable forms of modified versions of the Software, 
        that you meet these restrictions:

          a. You must include this license document in the distribution.

          b. You must ensure that all recipients of the 
machine-executable forms
             are also able to receive the complete machine-readable 
source code
             to the distributed Software, including all modifications, 
             any charge beyond the costs of data transfer, and place 
             notices in the distribution explaining this.

          c. You must ensure that all modifications included in the
             machine-executable forms are available under the terms of this

..and it is PHP - a scripting language, grants me permission to 
distribute machine executable forms of modified software - which is the 

> There is also no automatic license clause 
> which makes it clear that the original licensor grants an automatic 
> license to recipients under solely QPL terms. (the GPL, as an example, 
> is *much* clearer on this point).

   1. You are granted the non-exclusive rights set forth in this license
        provided you agree to and comply with any and all conditions in THIS

(my emphasis), and point 4 above

> Usually, having a license text like this gives you in affect an 
> automatic license, but the problem here is that this isn't the complete 
> license: it's missing the restriction on use clause that the original 
> distributor had. It's corrupt, and conflicted.

I think such cases can occur, but I think it did not occur here, more below:

> Saying there is no usage restriction relies on an argument that the 
> incomplete license included with distribution trumps the license as 
> offered originally. 

There isn't an originally offered license, it's a choice of two 
licenses, without the requirement to offer the same choice.

I think he explicitly (yet accidentally) gives non commercial users the 
rights to start a QPL distribution chain, without having to apply the 
commercial test.

> I think that's a tough argument to make stick; it's 
> possible it would, but I wouldn't like the odds.

Nor did I. I felt that the author had singularly failed to achieve his 
intent, but I knew what he meant; but people used to dealing with QPL 
software may accept a distribution from someone and justifiably act not 
in accordance with the authors wishes.

Anyway, we may disagree, certainly we agree that the situation is dodgy, 
and I appreciate your opinion.


More information about the Discussion mailing list