4 ms·
It's GPLv3. Or are you implying that deploying a website doesn't necessarily comply with the license just because the source is visible?
by detst 16y ago
It's GPLv3.
Or are you implying that deploying a website doesn't necessarily comply with the license just because the source is visible?
- seiji 16y agoI believe Tom is alluding to the fact that making a UI or JS library GPL'ed is a dick move. The Ext guys moved here from Flordia to take advantage of funding. They have a very "outside the valley" view of things, including wacky licenses.
- tlrobinson 16y agoI was responding to the statement "But its Javascript, so its basically open source" which is wrong (assuming they take "open source" to mean licensed under an OSI approved license) Just because the JavaScript is accessible by users that doesn't mean companies will want give others the right to reuse/redistribute the code. ExtJS's model (after the whole license switching scandal) was to provide the GPL version for free for projects that didn't mind being GPL, and provide a commercial license for those that wanted to remain proprietary. Presumably Senscha is similar.
- alttab 16y agoI guess my original comment was suggesting that someone could look at the source, get a bunch of ideas, then go build something very similar with relative ease. They wouldn't have to use the same code, but given a code base, organizational structure, and a clear end goal, someone dedicated enough could mimic its functionality in an open source project or roll just the portions they need to prevent any licensing. Not saying they may not get chased down for it, but if its their own code and it's different enough, Senscha has given them a route to this purely out of the fact the source is visible.