* Simon Morris wrote, On 12/11/09 07:51: > Hello, > > I'm looking at ExtJS as a Javascript library for building UIs. It is > dual licenced under GPL and a commerical licence. > > http://www.extjs.com/products/license.php > > Doing some research I came across one blog that suggests that the > licencing model is harmful to Free Software > > http://pablotron.org/?cid=1556 > > What is the lists opinion on this? Is ExtJS using the licence fairly and > is it considered ethical to use the library based on the blogs > criticisms?
(Trying to head-off a flame war) the simpler question might be to find who considers it ethical and who considers it un-ethical - FSF members and fans tend to agree on a small set of ethical principles, and a smaller set of means to achieve or maintain them. We may also consider where and when and it what ways it is harmful to free software and where and when and it what ways it is beneficial to free software - for such answers are not fixed against such a varying scope. Some FSF fans an members will have broad or long views, and others will have short term or pragmatic (a very inflammatory word) views; there are many ways from A to B - some are preferred for their holiness and some are preferred for being actually traversable within certain constraints. The answers to these points depend to a great degree on whose interests are being represented by the answerer. Sometimes it may be the interests of a real set of software users, sometimes it may be in the interests of an abstract composite software user. Sometimes it may be in the interests of getting a commercial body to make a single step towards software freedom. My own short view is that those who buy such licenses support some development of free software, and that such a situation also restricts collaboration from those who don't want their contributions locked away like that. I think it does not directly harm free software (only by effectively withholding deeper co-operation) but it may be seen to adjust the balance of the software eco-system affecting the decisions of others; i.e. such dual licenses present a "dangerous" middle-ground that is more attractive (making it all the more "dangerous"). As a harm, I think it is indirect - as a consequence of not directly supporting free software aims, and I think it can't be said to be more harmful that fully closed source although the pain may be felt more deeply through being inflicted by those who "are supposed to be friends". I prefer to think of the author as offering a free-software version of an otherwise closed product and so consider it a net benefit, but perhaps it makes an only-free version less worth developing. In short, if you want a decision to be formally "blessed" you will be better to either decide who you want to do the blessing or what it is you want to be blessed. Sam _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
