[Psc] questions for Ext licensing folks

[Eric Lemoine]

On Friday, May 1, 2009, 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/

Looks good to me.


>
>
>> 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

Ok. Would you like that I write this question? I tend to think that
you'll make the message clearer.

So I'm +1 on sending these questions (with the current wording) to Ext.

Also, whoever sends this to Ext, please CC: the PSC list.

Thanks a lot 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

-- 
Eric Lemoine

Camptocamp France SAS
Savoie Technolac, BP 352
73377 Le Bourget du Lac, Cedex

Tel : 00 33 4 79 44 44 96
Mail : eric.lemoine at camptocamp.com
http://www.camptocamp.com