[Psc] questions for Ext licensing folks

[Tim Schaub]

Hey-

Eric Lemoine wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Chris Holmes <cholmes at opengeo.org> wrote:
>> (also I get rejected by psc list, if someone could approve my messages and
>> add me as allowed sender that would be great).
> 
> (done)
> 

Ok, I'm assuming nothing was sent.  If I don't hear back otherwise by 
tomorrow morning, I'll send the note below to licensing at extjs.com unless 
I get a more direct address for Abraham Elias.

Final Draft
-----------

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 minified version of the
Ext source and is not produced by the Ext build tools [4] (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).


2) A typical application would include Ext and application code that 
calls Ext methods.  The Open Source License Exception for Applications 
[5] 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)?


Thanks for your responses.  We're excited to be using Ext and to be 
introducing developers of mapping applications to a rich new set of 
features.



[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/extjs/build/
[5] http://extjs.com/products/floss-exception.php



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