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

[Marc Jansen]

Hey Bart,


On 06/04/16 10:54, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
> This is weird, since what they are suggesting is actually what the 
> purpose was of their open source exemption.

Yes, that is how I understood that exception as well. Who cares, we have 
git it back.

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

Would work for me as well.

Thanks for the feedback.

>
> Best regards,
> Bart
>
>> On 06 Apr 2016, at 10:51, Marc Jansen <jansen at terrestris.de 
>> <mailto:jansen at terrestris.de>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi PSC-members,
>>
>> As I have discussed with you 
>> (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)
>>   * 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
>>       o We should make it absolutely clear what the options are (see
>>         above)
>>       o 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 <mailto:Psc at geoext.org>
>> http://www.geoext.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/psc
>


-- 

   Dipl.-Geogr. Marc Jansen
   — Anwendungsentwickler —

   terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
   Kölnstraße 99
   53111 Bonn

   Tel:   +49 (0)228 / 96 28 99 -53
   Fax:   +49 (0)228 / 96 28 99 -57

   Email: jansen at terrestris.de
   Web:   http://www.terrestris.de

   Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835, Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungs-
   gesellschaft mbH, vertreten durch: Hinrich Paulsen, Till Adams

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.geoext.org/pipermail/psc/attachments/20160406/fc56d7dc/attachment-0001.htm