[Psc] questions for Ext licensing folks

Fri May 1 22:46:16 CEST 2009

Hey-

Thanks for the response.  A bit more below.

Eric Lemoine wrote:
> Thanks Tim.
> 
> Regarding the first question: maybe we could be more explicit.
> Currently the question is: "is the application provider responsible
> for more than incuding...?". Could we add something like "For example,
> is the application provider supposed to (do this and this)?". This is
> to make it clear where we're coming from. Makes sense?
> 

Yeah, I agree it should be more specific.  How about this:

If an application includes a script that is a minified version of the 
Ext source and is not produced by the Ext build tools* (e.g. minified 
with YUICompressor), I assume this is considered "Conveying Non-Source 
Forms" and not "Conveying Modified Source Versions" under GPL v3.  Is 
this assumption correct?

If so, the GPL says the object code provider must also convey the 
machine-readable source.  One of the ways this can be done is to offer 
access to the source from a designated place (point 6.d).  Is it enough 
for the application provider to include a notice in the minified code 
that references the license and gives instruction to download the source 
from Ext?  I'm assuming the application provider doesn't have to provide 
access to anything else themselves (e.g. the tools used to minify the 
source or the source itself).

* http://extjs.com/products/extjs/build/

> The rest looks perfect to me.
> 
> [In my opinion the answer to 2. is "no" (because I don't see why Ext
> would choose GPLv3 for ExtJS and they did not want application code
> using Ext to be released under GPLv3), but I'd be happy to be said
> otherwise.]
> 

This makes it a valid question then.  At a glance, I think many would 
assume the purpose of the application exception is to allow application 
code an exception to the GPL.  I understand that things are not clear 
where they talk about independent works.  (And I think this is part of 
why RedHat considers the exception invalid.)

What we want to know is their intention, so I think it is a good 
question to ask.

Tim

> On Friday, May 1, 2009, Tim Schaub <tschaub at opengeo.org> wrote:
>> Hey-
>>
>> So we have some outstanding questions regarding licensing.  Instead of
>> continuing to speculate, I think it would be best to ask the Ext
>> licensing folks directly.  Below is a draft.  I don't have a direct
>> contact - if someone else does, please let me know.
>>
>> Please send feedback.  If I don't send this out today, my next day in
>> the office is May 11 and I will send it out then (if nobody else has).
>>
>> After writing the draft below and reading more, I am pretty convinced
>> that the answer to 1 is "no" and the answer to 2 is "yes."  Eric, you
>> had particular concerns about the application exception.  Please rework
>> the question if I have not captured your concern.  At this point, I'm
>> most concern about getting permission to use the name GeoExt.  I'd be
>> happy to remove either of the other questions if others think the
>> answers are clear.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> Draft of message to Ext licensing folks
>> ---------------------------------------
>>
>> Hello-
>>
>> I am writing on behalf of a community of developers working on a project
>> that extends ExtJS (2.x) classes with mapping functionality from the
>> OpenLayers library.  We have a number of questions related to licensing
>> (and intellectual property) that we are hoping to get answers on.
>>
>> First, we have been calling our project GeoExt, and wanted to make sure
>> the name was appropriate for us to use.  Below is a mockup of our issue
>> tracker with a logo at the head.
>>
>> http://img.skitch.com/20090409-jksimuqt2axkrciw386bx2n3f4.png.
>>
>> Please let us know if the name and look of the logo are acceptable for
>> us to use.
>>
>> Our library [1] extends Ext components and data utilities with mapping
>> functionality from OpenLayers [2].  Our plan has been to distribute
>> GeoExt under a BSD license and to include OpenLayers (with a BSDish
>> license) in our releases.  We will provide instructions with our
>> releases on obtaining Ext from extjs.com.  Our understanding is that we
>> meet the terms of the Open Source License Exception for Development [3].
>>
>> We have received some questions from interested application developers
>> regarding licensing of applications built with GeoExt and Ext.  I'll
>> enumerate them below.  Thanks for any answers you are able to provide.
>>
>>
>> 1) If an application includes a script that is a minimized build of the
>> ExtJS library that is not produced by the tools hosted here
>> http://extjs.com/products/extjs/build/ (e.g. compressed from the source
>> with YUICompressor), this looks to be considered "conveying non-source
>> forms" under GPL v3.  In this case, is the application provider
>> responsible for doing more than including a reference to the license and
>> instructions on getting the source from extjs.com?
>>
>>
>> 2) A typical application would include Ext and application code that
>> calls Ext methods.  The Open Source License Exception for Applications
>> [4] suggests that code that is independent of the library may be
>> distributed under one of the listed licenses (point 2.a and the
>> paragraph preceding it).  Is application code that relies on Ext (calls
>> methods and accesses properties) considered independent and can this
>> code be distributed under one of the listed licenses (assuming other
>> terms are met)?
>>
>>
>> [1] http://svn.geoext.org/core/trunk/geoext/lib/
>> [2] http://openlayers.org/
>> [3] http://extjs.com/products/ux-exception.php
>> [4] http://extjs.com/products/floss-exception.php
>>
>>
>> --
>> Tim Schaub
>> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
>> Expert service straight from the developers.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Psc mailing list
>> Psc at geoext.org
>> http://www.geoext.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/psc
>>
> 

-- 
Tim Schaub
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.