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

[Marc Jansen]

Hi everyone,

is somebody actually doing sth. here?

I think it might be easier to just open an issue / PR where committers 
need to agree on the license change.

We need someone to take care of this so we can settle this issue, IMO.

Cheers, Marc



On 20/04/16 15:51, Marc Jansen wrote:
> +1
>
> thanks for taking this on.
>
> On 20/04/16 15:35, Christian Mayer wrote:
>> Hi Julien,
>>
>> thanks for providing this text block. Sounds good to me. The license change from
>> BSD to GPL has been made here [1]. The term "Commercial License" seems to be
>> correct as you can see here [2]. Maybe we include the link to Sencha's legal
>> page ([2]) as well to be clear.
>>
>> So, for me the procedure of sending an email to the dev-list sounds to be a
>> reasonable next step.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/geoext/geoext3/pull/16
>> [2] https://www.sencha.com/legal/
>>
>>
>>
>>> Julien-Samuel Lacroix <jlacroix at mapgears.com> hat am 20. April 2016 um 14:46
>>> geschrieben:
>>>
>>>
>>> I think the first step will be anounce our intention on the dev list and
>>> get a written (by email) acceptance from all committers. Tentative email:
>>>
>>> <text>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> The GeoExt PSC has been actively discussing with Sencha about the ExtJS
>>> licensing change that prevented us to use GeoExt with a commercial ExtJS
>>> license. The change made in version X forced us to switch from a BSD
>>> licence to GPL preventing GeoExt to be used with a Commercial ExtJS.
>>>
>>> After several months we are really pleased to announced an agreement
>>> from Sencha to Dual-Licence GeoExt 3. Users of GeoExt 3 will be able to
>>> get it under GPLv3 or, if they own an ExtJS commercial licence, use it
>>> under a BSD licence.
>>>
>>> To be able to proceed with this licence change we require a written
>>> agreement from every code contributors:
>>>
>>>     - marcjansen
>>>     - KaiVolland
>>>     - bentrm
>>>     - weskamm
>>>     - chrismayer
>>>     - bartvde
>>>     - jgrocha
>>>     - patryksosinski
>>>     - dnlkoch
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> The GeoExt PSC team
>>>
>>> </text>
>>>
>>> I did not find the right term for "ExtJS commercial licence". I'm sure
>>> it has a name, but could not find it.
>>>
>>> Please let me know what you think, feel free to correct and send it if
>>> you agree.
>>>
>>> Julien
>>>
>>> On 16-04-20 06:02 AM, Christian Mayer wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> any ideas or plans how we proceed on this?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and cheers,
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Julien-Samuel Lacroix <jlacroix at mapgears.com> hat am 6. April 2016 um 14:50
>>>>> geschrieben:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>      * 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)
>>>>> Thank you very much for this! I'm +1 big time on dual licensing.
>>>>>
>>>>>>      * Decide which other license suits our need. Since Apache was brought
>>>>>>        up by Sencha, I'd be willing to take that one
>>>>> I'm fine either way.
>>>>>
>>>>>>      * 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?
>>>>> I like the idea of adding a LICENCE-FAQ.md. I think I would also provide
>>>>> 2 download links:
>>>>>       - GeoExt FOSS version: click here
>>>>>       - If you own an ExtJS Commercial Licence: Click here
>>>>>       - See FAQ for details
>>>>>
>>>>>>      * Do we need to get the appreciation of all actual committers again?
>>>>> I think that for any license change we do need a confirmation of all
>>>>> actual contributor since they technically "own" the code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Julien
>>>>>