[Psc] questions for Ext licensing folks

Sat May 2 05:42:34 CEST 2009

Hi Tim,
Thanks for trying to know the truth about this question.
I have a direct contact by ExtJS: Abraham Elias, the ExtJS CEO, so I would
be happy to transfer him this question on behalf of the GeoExt PSC.
Cédric

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Tim Schaub <tschaub at opengeo.org> wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Psc mailing list
> Psc at geoext.org
> http://www.geoext.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/psc
>

-- 
CTO Geospatial Camptocamp SA
Cédric Moullet
PSE A
CH-1015 Lausanne
www.camptocamp.com  / www.mapfish.org / twitter.com/cedricmoullet /
mapfishblog.blogspot.com/

+41 79 759 69 83 (mobile)
+41 21 619 10 21 (direct)
+41 21 619 10 10 (centrale)
+41 21 619 10 00 (fax)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.geoext.org/pipermail/psc/attachments/20090502/47d2bc04/attachment-0001.htm 