Another ExtJS GPL thought - Should extensions switch to the GPL?
Published April 26th, 2008 in Dual License, ExtJS, GPL, LGPLSorry, this would better go to twitter - but I’m not twittering.
Another thought. And not because I want to bash ExtJS, but because I’ve been interested into the GPL, open source licensing and the implications for over a decade.
IANAL. The best situation for the company behind ExtJS would be if extension developers stay with the LGPL for their extension (or switch to a more liberal Apache license). The people who buy the OEM license from Ext can then use the extension. If someone releases his ExtJS extension as GPL, to be more “in line” with ExtJS, people with the OEM license cannot use the plugin, because it’s GPL (they can use the extension in a way that their customer need to download and install the extension on his own, but this is most often too cumbersome for customers. They are not allowed to distribute their commercial application with the extension or any code which references the extension).
The plugin writers do not gain anything for staying with the LGPL license, but Ext LLC gains a lot. It makes their OEM license much more valuable. If every Plugin writer switches to the GPL version, this could have an impact on the OEM sale. Especially because most enterprise won’t touch GPL software.
The best for a plugin author is to also go to a dual GPL/commercial license.
Very interesting situation.
Update: Very interesting
11 Responses to “Another ExtJS GPL thought - Should extensions switch to the GPL?”
- 1 Pingback on Apr 28th, 2008 at 8:28 am
A few years ago superwaba did the same thing. Look how they played out - they died.
Most likely ExtJS will be history too. If not, then I would really be interested in why not. This would be interesting for open source business models. The current canon says this won’t work.
I’m developing web application “as a service”. I never distribute it anywhere. I’ve relicensed all my work to GPL3 without problem. You are not forced to give sources away if there is no distribution. And there is not.
Fear not. I think we’re all going to find this has been loudly blown out of proportion.
“Open Source License Exception for Extensions
Draft .26, April 28th, 2008″
http://extjs.com/products/ux-exception.php
@Chris: Perhaps I’m stupid - most of the time watching the world I think this is the only explanation that makes sense - but the exception does not change anything. As written in the post, liberal extensions do only help Ext LLC, no-one else. This is just smoke and mirror.
As predicted in the post “The best situation for the company behind ExtJS would be if extension developers stay with the LGPL for their extension (or switch to a more liberal Apache license).”
What would help is “[…] applications […] for that we are working on another FLOSS Exception.” We’ll see.
But in the end this will not change the point the companies will not touch GPL stuff.
@Stephen: What do you think of the gwt-ext folks selling gwt-plus licenses?
try doing a search for “purchase gwt plus license”. you’ll find this obscure page which doesn’t seem to be heavily advertised on any of their main sites.
Are they under-cutting ExtJS?
@Stephan: (sorry for typo in your name in last comment)
@Chris: Not sure, GWT Plus is something additional to GWT Ext, not just something relicensed.
There is a lot going on with Ext and licensing, perhaps best to wait a month and see how the dust settles. Perhaps the internet and forum discussions started to change things - perhaps not and it’s just smoke and mirrors.
@Chris: NP, I’m used to that