[Psc] questions for Ext licensing folks

[Chris Holmes]

Hey, thanks for ccing me.  The one thing I'd recommend, though I think 
they're savvy enough to be aware, is to point out the benefits of GeoExt 
for Ext.js.  That the way our project is set up should help them sell 
Ext.js commercial licenses, and that we will encourage people to 
purchase licenses from Ext.js.  We just want our license to be flexible 
for both.  So they see us deriving images and names from them as a good 
thing.

Chris

Eric Lemoine wrote:
> 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
> 

-- 
Chris Holmes
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.