On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 03:58:45PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009, Marcus Better wrote:
> > This is non-free. Please keep it out of Debian.
> > Surely you are aware of the huge controversy around Ext JS licensing.
> > There is no need to repeat that story here, let me just point to this page:
> > http://www.extjs.com/company/dual.php
> > Here they make claims that directly contravene parts of GPL-3:
> > "If you derive a commercial advantage by having a closed source
> > solution, you must purchase an appropriate number of commercial licenses
> > from Ext."
> This applies to you if you use it in a non-open source project. It doesn't
> apply here.
> > "If you wish to use the open source license of an Ext product, you must
> > contribute all your source code to the open source community and you
> > must give them the right to share it with everyone too."
> Dual licensing is a common choice (trolltech/mysql) and doesn't make the
> software non-free. At least the (out of context) quotes you give do not
> make this software non-free. There may be other issues I don't know but
> you'll have to explain in more depth what the problems are.
Except the issue is not about dual licensing, but about intent being
different to what the license actually says. i.e. The GPL3 the code is
supposed to be released under doesn't have these obligations, and
anybody not contributing back or taking commercial advantage in a closed
source solution is in its total rights under the GPL3 license.
If these rights are supposed to be taken off, then this means the
code is not meant to be under GPL3. What they really want is probably