ExtJS licencing

Ben Finney bignose+hates-spam at benfinney.id.au
Fri Nov 13 21:29:51 UTC 2009

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”

> "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

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

More information about the Discussion mailing list