[Psc] Finally: New licensing option for GeoExt3 (ツ)

[Bart van den Eijnden]

This is weird, since what they are suggesting is actually what the purpose was of their open source exemption.

Why not keep BSD then, like we have already in older versions?

Best regards,
Bart

> On 06 Apr 2016, at 10:51, Marc Jansen <jansen at terrestris.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi PSC-members,
> 
> As I have discussed with you (http://www.geoext.org/pipermail/psc/2016-January/000194.html <http://www.geoext.org/pipermail/psc/2016-January/000194.html>), I went on to negotiate our licensing options with the Sencha people.
> 
> Here is a short recap of the current situation:
> Since the Exception for OSS is no longer existing, GeoExt switched to be licensed as GPL software (https://github.com/geoext/geoext3/pull/16 <https://github.com/geoext/geoext3/pull/16>)
> This might be problematic when people want to use GeoExt code with their correctly bought licensed software
> After some back and forth a Sencha official proposed the following:
> > So if geoExt does not include our code, you could dual license it GPLv3 and Apache - the GPLv3 version to go with Ext JS GPLv3 and the Apache version to go with Ext JS commercial for closed source uses.  You'd probably want to make this clear to your users so they get the right version and don't wind up with GPL issues.  Apache could be Apache, MIT, BSD, free commercial, or anything that allows you to combine it with other work and go closed source (technically, going closed source is redistributing under a commercial license). 
> Effectively this would mean that we would dual license GeoExt, and the license of the actually used ExtJS determines which license from GeoExt actually applies to your code.
> I personally feel this is a wonderful option we get back from Sencha here and I am very grateful that they offer us this in my communication with them.
> Here is a rough outline what we could do starting from now:
> Decide on whether we want to be dual licensed as outlined above (A simple +1, 0, -1 vote of the PSC in response to this mail would be enough, I guess)
> Decide which other license suits our need. Since Apache was brought up by Sencha, I'd be willing to take that one
> Discuss the wording of how we document the licensing everywhere (Sencha and I have talked this through but in the end we decide and simply make it totally cklear to our users)
> Provide PR that actually does the change
> We should make it absolutely clear what the options are (see above)
> We should document this at several places
> LICENSE.md at the repository root
> LICENSE-FAQ.md at the repository root
> every source-file header
> on the homepage
> some other place?
> Do we need to get the appreciation of all actual committers again?
> What are your thoughts?
> Best,
> Marc
> 
> PS: Once this is settled, I really want to have a v3.0.0 released. And then switch to a release often-strategy. But thats stuff for another day.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Psc mailing list
> Psc at geoext.org
> http://www.geoext.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/psc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.geoext.org/pipermail/psc/attachments/20160406/4d31c837/attachment.htm