[Users] I wonder Geoext license
crschmidt at crschmidt.net
Fri Apr 24 15:16:44 CEST 2009
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
> > 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:
> 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:
"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.
More information about the Users