[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#550031: ITP: libjs-extjs -- a cross-browser JavaScript library

Neil Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 00:20:51 -0000 (UTC)
> "Thomas Goirand" <thomas@gplhost.com> wrote:
>>> It's not my position to get into Debian's debate. I can confirm for you
>>> that Ext JS can absolutely be licensed under GPL v3 without qualification.
>>> If there is commentary that can be read counter to that, then that is not a
>>> good read of what we are saying. From a legal standpoint, Ext JS can be
>>> licensed under GPL v3, or alternatively under a Commercial License from Ext
>>> JS.  We put no conditions on the GPL v3 use, other than those of GPL v3
>>> itself.
>>> ~ Adam
>> Nobody is asking for debate, but if you were to write yourself "We put no
>> conditions on the GPL v3 use, other than those of GPL v3 itself." ends any
>> starting debate indeed, but then what you have write on your website is
>> kind of confusing (at least to some of us).
>> Now, I wonder what other people from Debian will say after this declaration.
> What matters is what is claimed as the licence for the code itself, not
> how that licence is or is not described on a website.

But the license file refers to the website... Here's the main part of
its content:

Open Source License
Ext is licensed under the terms of the Open Source GPL 3.0 license.


There are several FLOSS exceptions available for use with this release for
open source applications that are distributed under a license other than
the GPL.

* Open Source License Exception for Applications


* Open Source License Exception for Development


Commercial License
This is the appropriate option if you are creating proprietary
applications and you are
not prepared to distribute and share the source code of your application
under the
GPL v3 license. Please visit http://extjs.com/license for more details.

OEM / Reseller License
For more details, please visit: http://extjs.com/license.

As you see, even the license.txt is kind of wrong and doesn't cut/past
the necessary parts of the GPL v3.

> If the claims on the website are retained into the licensing of the
> software, then the software would seem to be non-distributable as the
> licence (taken as a whole, the additional claims and the main licence)
> is in conflict.

What if the license.txt is like above?

> If the software comes with an unaltered copy of the GPL3 and no other
> conditions, then the website claims can be deemed misleading but
> are irrelevant to the software to be packaged for Debian.

The software comes with NO COPY AT ALL of the GPL3. Just a link to it as
per above.


Reply to: