I apologize if you felt that it was a personal attack but truthfully this response of yours really make very little sense. I urge you to read it again with an open mind.
What you're saying is that any developer can do anything with their product at anytime and you try to justify their move. Unfortunaltey the software world and licensing does not work that way when there are other libraries with their own licenses to adhere to. Let me quote from the EPL link I provided earlier : "The EPL 1.0 is not compatible with the GPL, and a work created by combining a work licensed under the GPL with a work licensed under the EPL cannot be lawfully distributed." On Sep 3, 10:25 am, Shawn Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > There's a huge difference between a platform / app server / Java and a > > library being GPL. A library being GPL means you need you release the source > > of your entire application, simple. An app server or Java being GPL has > > absolutely no effect on the licensing and distribution of your application > > while using GPL library means that you need to release all your code > > making it unsuitable for use in commercial products. > > So according to your analysis ExtGWT is unsuitable for commercial > products. So what. The authors of ExtGWT are free to release their > work under any license they choose. Just because the developers don't > see their work serving your purposes...so what. A developer can > choose any license they wish for their work. That is what the truth > is so why are you calling me names? > > You somehow believe that ExtGWT developers should only release their > work so you can use it in your commercial product. Other developers > who are not distributing the ExtGWT library may not feel the same way. > For example: > > A company that modifies open source software released under the GPL is > not considered to be distributing (GPL v. 2) or conveying (GPL v. 3) > when it runs the modified software as part of collaborative cloud > computing. Therefore, the company does not have to contribute the > modified software back to the community pursuant to the copyleft > clause of the GPL. > > How about cases where the source code is not modified and the > resulting java script is run over a network. Are you asserting that a > javascript application run over a network requires that the source for > the javascript be made available just because a GPLd library was used > in generating the javascript that is run in the clouds. > Good example! GPL does not require you to distribute your code under such circumstances, however the Ext team put their own spin on how their GPL license should be interpreted. Try posting this very question on the Ext / ExtGWT forum. I guarantee that your post will not get a public response and if you email them you will get a response saying that you will require a license even if you are using their software as part part of collaborative cloud computing which is totally contradictory to what GPL permits. This is the very reason they will not respond in the public forum. > > Our legal team looked at it and found numerous > > violations and we did report in on the Ext / ExtGWT forums but the posts > > were mostly ignored or deleted. > > SWT. SWT is licensed under EPL and EPL is well documented to be incompatible > > with GPL. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License Since we > > are no longer planning on using ExtGWT, I have no intentions of burning any > > more time trying to get them to resolve this. > > Hmmn, let's think about this. The reason they changed in the first > place was they had multiple incompatible licenses. You assert they > are intending to violate the EPL. I suspect they will rewrite that as > soon as they can. > You suspect?? Why do you defend such violations based on speculation and what you think they will do? > > If you are going to make such statements or take a bait, do your homework > > first. > > Well you can keep using the ExtJS up to what it is 2.0.2 just like > they said you could. They haven't changed that at all. They are no > longer offering code under that license though. > > I did my homework. The developers felt that releasing with the type > of license that would have been beneficial to you, would have allowed > you to take what they felt was unfair advantage of their work. As > developers, they choose (right or wrong for the ultimate success of > their project) a more restrictive license that they felt was in the > best interest of their development. > Are you part of the Ext / ExtGWT team and speaking on behalf of them? Or simply mind reading? > I am sorry you don't agree. The SWT issue surely needs to be worked > out but I still fail to see why a developer can not choose to release > their new work under a different license than they did in the past. I > honestly don't consider that dirty. > Let me quote this again for you : "The EPL 1.0 is not compatible with the GPL, and a work created by combining a work licensed under the GPL with a work licensed under the EPL cannot be lawfully distributed." > Ok the developers of ExtGWT thought people were taking advantage of > them. You are angry because you can't take advantage of them. > Crystal ball? btw do you feel that you are taking advantage of the GWT team by using their product for free? > Call me clueless all you want but I still fail to see how it makes the > ExtGWT developers dirty. Anyway, thank you for your time. > > All the Best, --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" 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/google-web-toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
