[Users] I wonder Geoext license

[Christopher Schmidt]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:03:12AM -0700, Tim Schaub wrote:
> Christopher Schmidt wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:57:45PM -0400, Chris Holmes wrote:
> >> We just started up a section of the wiki to be a licensing FAQ - I hope 
> >> to find some time in the next few days to help fill it out.  If people 
> >> want to add questions that would help, even if you don't know the 
> >> answers.  See http://www.geoext.org/trac/geoext/wiki/license
> >>
> >> For this question, if you're fine with a MapFish solution then you're 
> >> fine with a GeoExt solution.  MapFish is GPL 3.  You can easily just 
> >> think of Ext+GeoExt as GPL 3.
> >>
> >> Ext+GeoExt also has the additional option that you can purchase a 
> >> developer license and then you will not be bound by the terms of GPL 3. 
> >>     Ext is liberally licensed so it's also compatible with Ext.js's 
> >> developer license.  But if you're doing the deployment on a customers 
> >> site then GPL 3 should be fine for you - it only kicks in if you're 
> >> making some full package that they have to download.
> > 
> > The GPL restrictions -- specifically, the requirement to provide source code (or
> > in very limited circumstances, a written promise of source code) -- applies to
> > propogation or conveyance of the code. According to the FSF, since the
> > Javascript code is delivered from the server of the customer to the web browser
> > user, it is conveyed, and therefore subject to the terms of the GPLv3. This
> > means that if you *deploy* a GeoExt based application under the terms of the
> > GPLv3, it is the responsibility of that deployment to make available the source
> > code under the terms of the GPLv3.
> 
> Right, I think I covered this in the first answer on the FAQ (though 
> perhaps not as clearly written).  I agree that Chris' comment above 
> about GPL only kicking in if you provide a separate download of the 
> source is not accurate.
> 
> Let me know if you disagree with anything on the wiki page:
> http://www.geoext.org/trac/geoext/wiki/license
> 
> Also, the pages linked on Ext exceptions for toolkits and applications 
> (two separate exceptions) are worth reading.

If you believe they are valid; RedHat, at least, believes they are not:

 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471509#c2

 "The latest version of ExtJS claims to be under GPLv3 with an exception,
 documented here: http://extjs.com/products/floss-exception.php

 RH Legal is firm that this exception clause isn't valid.
 "

Regards,
-- 
Christopher Schmidt
Web Developer