what what

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Joshua Bronson <jabronson@...> wrote:
> It really rocks to have a local expert on software licenses. Can I get a
> what what?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 3:07 PM, David Turner <novalis@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 15:07 -0400, David Turner wrote:
> > > The plain LGPL has no field-of-use restriction.  The restriction added
> > > in the Ext license present a few major problems:
> > >
> > > 1. The new license is no longer compatible with the plain GPL.  The
> > > plain GPL (any version) does not permit additional restrictions on field
> > > of use.
> > >
> > > 2. The new license would not be considered to be a free software license
> > > by FSF, nor an open source license by OSI.  I can tell you this with
> > > absolute certainty, since one of my duties when I worked for FSF was
> > > evaluating licenses.
> > >
> > > 3. The new license is confusing.  It says it's LGPL, but then gives up
> > > on many of the most important characteristics of the LGPL.
> > >
> > > 4. I have no idea what a "developer toolkit" is.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, under these circumstances, I cannot recommend the use of
> > > current versions of Ext.  I will be recommending that we peg ourselves
> > > to the latest version of Ext which was available under the plain LGPL.
> > > This is what
> >
> > [sorry, accidentally hit send early].
> >
> > This is what we appear to be using now.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Archive:
> http://www.openplans.org/projects/opencore/lists/opencore-dev/archive/2008/03/1206990440574
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to
> opencore-dev@....  Please contact
> opencore-dev-manager@... for questions.
> >
> >
>
>

I don't know when the changeover happened, since they appear to not have
an open svn repository (yuck).  Some of the files we have say "see
http://extjs.com/licensing for license".  Some say "LGPL 2.1", with no
mention of additional restrictions.  Googling reveals various versions
under the LGPL, but since everyone seems to use the mangled (compressed)
version, rather than the source, it's hard to tell anything.  Do we know
where we can find the source to what we have?  

On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 15:15 -0400, Douglas Mayle wrote:
> Do you mean that 1.x is under the bastardized LGPL ?  I had thought it  
> was just plain LGPL...  What a disappointment...
> 
> On Mar 31, 2008, at 3:07 PM, David Turner wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 15:07 -0400, David Turner wrote:
> >> The plain LGPL has no field-of-use restriction.  The restriction  
> >> added
> >> in the Ext license present a few major problems:
> >>
> >> 1. The new license is no longer compatible with the plain GPL.  The
> >> plain GPL (any version) does not permit additional restrictions on  
> >> field
> >> of use.
> >>
> >> 2. The new license would not be considered to be a free software  
> >> license
> >> by FSF, nor an open source license by OSI.  I can tell you this with
> >> absolute certainty, since one of my duties when I worked for FSF was
> >> evaluating licenses.
> >>
> >> 3. The new license is confusing.  It says it's LGPL, but then gives  
> >> up
> >> on many of the most important characteristics of the LGPL.
> >>
> >> 4. I have no idea what a "developer toolkit" is.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, under these circumstances, I cannot recommend the  
> >> use of
> >> current versions of Ext.  I will be recommending that we peg  
> >> ourselves
> >> to the latest version of Ext which was available under the plain  
> >> LGPL.
> >> This is what
> >
> > [sorry, accidentally hit send early].
> >
> > This is what we appear to be using now.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Archive: http://www.openplans.org/projects/opencore/lists/opencore-dev/archive/2008/03/1206990440574
> > To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to opencore-dev@... 
> > .  Please contact opencore-dev-manager@... for  
> > questions.
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Archive: http://www.openplans.org/projects/opencore/lists/opencore-dev/archive/2008/03/1206990935438
> To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to opencore-dev@....  Please contact opencore-dev-manager@... for questions.
> 
> 
> !DSPAM:4019,47f1391d326302092453641!
> 

Hey All,
Cholmes and I are looking into this in order to make a decision about  
what is best for TOPP. We may come back with some questions for you  
as we move towards an organizational decision. We are hoping to move  
fairly quickly on this, and we'll report back. Please hang tight  
while we move forward.

-JA
On Apr 2, 2008, at 2:02 PM, David Turner wrote:

>
> On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 12:01 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
>> OK, so to recap on this licensing thing:
>
> [I'm just answering the licensing side, since that's what I'm familiar
> with]
>
>> 1. Is there any chance we can convince Ext to release their library
>> under an open source license?  E.g., GPL-with-exemptions, instead of
>> fake-LGPL-with-restrictions?
>
> It's worth a try.  I'm happy to write that email.
>
>> 2. Do we want to make a stink about this?  Either to help 1  
>> happen, or
>> just out of principle?  Or can we just rely on the FSF to make a  
>> stink
>> about it?
>
> FSF doesn't really have the resources to go after everyone who is
> misusing the licenses.
>
>> 3. If there is a chance of 1, what is the timeline when we'll know?
>> Like, how long before we give up hope?
>
> I have been getting replies fairly quickly, and they have been polite
> and clear.
>
>
>
> --
> Archive: http://www.openplans.org/projects/opencore/lists/opencore- 
> dev/archive/2008/04/1207159354964
> To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to opencore- 
> dev@....  Please contact opencore-dev- 
> manager@... for questions.
>
>
> !DSPAM:4004,47f3ca75190247180515871!
>