ExtJS licencing

[Ben Finney]

Alex Hudson <home at alexhudson.com> writes:

> Where it says, "If you wish to use the open source license of an Ext
> product, you must contribute all your source code to the open source
> community".

That appears to be a poorly-worded “If you wish to derive a new work
from an Ext product under the GPLv3, a consequence of that license is
that any time you redistribute the new work you must make the source
code of that work available to every recipient.”

Yes, it's a classic “what does “use” mean this time?” lawyer bomb,
combined with the misapprehension of “must give source code to everyone”
omitting to mention the “only to recipients when you redistribute”
qualifier.

> "You *must* contribute *all* your source code" - c'mon, it's pretty 
> straightforward...

I don't think it's straightforward. I think it's poorly worded, a common
misstatement of the GPL's effects.

I do agree with you that it's pretty easy for a perverse reading of that
to interpret in a hostile manner, but I don't think it would be taken by
a court of law that way. And, since it's not part of the license terms
but only a statement of intent, I think the court would have much more
“what is most sensible” leeway in reading it.

This could, I expect, be fixed by a (potential or existing) user of Ext
products having a calm chat with them about the wording on that page,
asking for it to be clarified in line with the actual effects of the
GPLv3.

-- 
 \      “The trouble with eating Italian food is that five or six days |
  `\                        later you're hungry again.” —George Miller |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney