On May 10, 8:12 am, Justin Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Things have really come to a head with the change in licensing of the > > extJS toolset to GPL. Without an exception to their license we would > > need to discontinue using the toolkit or also change to GPL. This has > > triggered a lot of soul searching internally, and discussion about the > > GPL in general. Do we dump extJS? Do we move to GPL? If we move to > > GPL, what commercial options are needed? Are we running the right > > license model at all? And so on. > > As long as you don't upgrade to ExtJS 2.1 you wouldn't be required to > use the GPL :) Or if you need to upgrade to ExtJS 2.1, perhaps you > could buy one of their OEM/Reseller licenses and still be able to > offer FarCry under the CPL.
Unfortunately, this is not entirely accurate. Firstly prior to 2.1 extJS was released under a pseudo-LGPL. I say pseudo because it was not entirely kosher according to many people. We integrated in the belief that it was simply LGPL. We are left with the prospect of staying with the current 2.x release (on no support and grey areas re: licensing), upgrading and adhering to GPL, or removing the code base entirely. Although we could sort out a OEM/Reseller agreement for ourselves, that could not be passed to the community under CPL. With respect to extJS, the only hope is a license exception that allows non-GPL compliant open source distributions such as CPL to include the library: http://extjs.com/products/ux-exception.php -- geoff http://www.daemon.com.au/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
