Re: Bug#550031: ITP: libjs-extjs -- a cross-browser JavaScript library
Thomas, I discussed this matter with our CEO and he asked me to resolve the compliancy. I iwll update you shortly. ~ Adam Hi Adam, Ok, that sounds good, as I would really hate to push for a package that has some controversy on the freeness of it's license. I am very happy to see that you guys respond to emails, and this makes me feel a lot more comfortable for this packaging. I have already done my packaging, you can get the Debian package from there if you want to test/see/comment them: http://ftparchive.gplhost.com/debian/pool/lenny/main/l/libjs-extjs/ At the time of reading, it should also have reached all of our mirrors around the world. As you can see, I have separated the library itself from the documentation, as it was rather big, and this is a good practice in this case in Debian. Let me know when you update your site and/or your licensing, Best Regards, Thomas Goirand -- Thomas Goirand GPLHost CEO Phone numbers: +1 302 213 1611 (USA) / +33 177627734 (France) +44 8449108864 (UK) / +61 280617698 (Australia) Web: http://www.gplhost.com GPLHost:_ Open source hosting worldwide Web spaces featuring GPL control panel and Xen VPS Locations in Singapore, Sydney, Seattle, Florida, Paris, London, Barcelona, Israel and Malaysia -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#550031: ITP: libjs-extjs -- a cross-browser JavaScript library
Le Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 12:20:51AM -, Thomas Goirand a écrit : Thomas, It's not my position to get into Debian's debate. I can confirm for you that Ext JS can absolutely be licensed under GPL v3 without qualification. If there is commentary that can be read counter to that, then that is not a good read of what we are saying. From a legal standpoint, Ext JS can be licensed under GPL v3, or alternatively under a Commercial License from Ext JS. We put no conditions on the GPL v3 use, other than those of GPL v3 itself. ~ Adam Nobody is asking for debate, but if you were to write yourself We put no conditions on the GPL v3 use, other than those of GPL v3 itself. ends any starting debate indeed, but then what you have write on your website is kind of confusing (at least to some of us). Now, I wonder what other people from Debian will say after this declaration. I think that the position, as well as the website, are crystal clear. The ‘Quick Overview’ is not a license by itself, it simply tries to summarise in two lines what copyleft means, and is not an additional restriction to the GPL. debian-de...@l.d.o is a good place to hear some advices, but the only persons who veto packages in Debian are our archive administrators, an none of them has objected against libjs-extjs. In my opinion, just go ahead and it will be fine :) Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#550031: ITP: libjs-extjs -- a cross-browser JavaScript library
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 00:20:51 - (UTC) Thomas Goirand tho...@gplhost.com wrote: It's not my position to get into Debian's debate. I can confirm for you that Ext JS can absolutely be licensed under GPL v3 without qualification. If there is commentary that can be read counter to that, then that is not a good read of what we are saying. From a legal standpoint, Ext JS can be licensed under GPL v3, or alternatively under a Commercial License from Ext JS. We put no conditions on the GPL v3 use, other than those of GPL v3 itself. ~ Adam Nobody is asking for debate, but if you were to write yourself We put no conditions on the GPL v3 use, other than those of GPL v3 itself. ends any starting debate indeed, but then what you have write on your website is kind of confusing (at least to some of us). Now, I wonder what other people from Debian will say after this declaration. What matters is what is claimed as the licence for the code itself, not how that licence is or is not described on a website. If the claims on the website are retained into the licensing of the software, then the software would seem to be non-distributable as the licence (taken as a whole, the additional claims and the main licence) is in conflict. If the software comes with an unaltered copy of the GPL3 and no other conditions, then the website claims can be deemed misleading but are irrelevant to the software to be packaged for Debian. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpiLWe45QAvq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#550031: ITP: libjs-extjs -- a cross-browser JavaScript library
Neil Williams wrote: On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 00:20:51 - (UTC) Thomas Goirand tho...@gplhost.com wrote: It's not my position to get into Debian's debate. I can confirm for you that Ext JS can absolutely be licensed under GPL v3 without qualification. If there is commentary that can be read counter to that, then that is not a good read of what we are saying. From a legal standpoint, Ext JS can be licensed under GPL v3, or alternatively under a Commercial License from Ext JS. We put no conditions on the GPL v3 use, other than those of GPL v3 itself. ~ Adam Nobody is asking for debate, but if you were to write yourself We put no conditions on the GPL v3 use, other than those of GPL v3 itself. ends any starting debate indeed, but then what you have write on your website is kind of confusing (at least to some of us). Now, I wonder what other people from Debian will say after this declaration. What matters is what is claimed as the licence for the code itself, not how that licence is or is not described on a website. But the license file refers to the website... Here's the main part of its content: Open Source License -- Ext is licensed under the terms of the Open Source GPL 3.0 license. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html There are several FLOSS exceptions available for use with this release for open source applications that are distributed under a license other than the GPL. * Open Source License Exception for Applications http://extjs.com/products/floss-exception.php * Open Source License Exception for Development http://extjs.com/products/ux-exception.php Commercial License -- This is the appropriate option if you are creating proprietary applications and you are not prepared to distribute and share the source code of your application under the GPL v3 license. Please visit http://extjs.com/license for more details. OEM / Reseller License -- For more details, please visit: http://extjs.com/license. As you see, even the license.txt is kind of wrong and doesn't cut/past the necessary parts of the GPL v3. If the claims on the website are retained into the licensing of the software, then the software would seem to be non-distributable as the licence (taken as a whole, the additional claims and the main licence) is in conflict. What if the license.txt is like above? If the software comes with an unaltered copy of the GPL3 and no other conditions, then the website claims can be deemed misleading but are irrelevant to the software to be packaged for Debian. The software comes with NO COPY AT ALL of the GPL3. Just a link to it as per above. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#550031: ITP: libjs-extjs -- a cross-browser JavaScript library
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:24:55 +0800 Thomas Goirand tho...@goirand.fr wrote: What matters is what is claimed as the licence for the code itself, not how that licence is or is not described on a website. But the license file refers to the website... Here's the main part of its content: Open Source License -- Ext is licensed under the terms of the Open Source GPL 3.0 license. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html That's wrong for starters - the licence at that URL is the GNU General Public Licence. If there is an Open Source GPL 3.0 licence it does not exist at the URL quoted. I doubt GNU would take kindly to being renamed Open Source. There are several FLOSS exceptions available for use with this release for open source applications that are distributed under a license other than the GPL. * Open Source License Exception for Applications http://extjs.com/products/floss-exception.php * Open Source License Exception for Development http://extjs.com/products/ux-exception.php Those exceptions need to be assessed separately and clarification sought from upstream as to whether these exceptions always apply if the package is distributed under the GPL3 or only apply if the distributor chooses to use them. Commercial License -- This is the appropriate option if you are creating proprietary applications and you are not prepared to distribute and share the source code of your application under the GPL v3 license. Please visit http://extjs.com/license for more details. This is dual-licensing and this commercial licence is therefore irrelevant for Debian - the alternative licence should probably be retained but I defer to ftp-master or debian-legal for a definitive answer on that. With a dual or tri licensed package, the alternative licences do not affect each other, each distributor is allowed to use whichever licence is most suitable to their needs - in our case, presumably, GPL3. OEM / Reseller License -- For more details, please visit: http://extjs.com/license. As you see, even the license.txt is kind of wrong and doesn't cut/past the necessary parts of the GPL v3. Yes, so that should be fixed with upstream before packaging for Debian so that the licensing is clear. Comments in the source code would be the best place for the GPLv3 declaration - as usual, alongside the Copyright statements. It appears to be tri-licensed - the only issue is whether the exceptions quoted under the GPL section always apply or are optional additions. The second and third licensing arrangements have no effect on the GPL section. If the claims on the website are retained into the licensing of the software, then the software would seem to be non-distributable as the licence (taken as a whole, the additional claims and the main licence) is in conflict. What if the license.txt is like above? Get upstream to fix it and clarify it. If the software comes with an unaltered copy of the GPL3 and no other conditions, then the website claims can be deemed misleading but are irrelevant to the software to be packaged for Debian. The software comes with NO COPY AT ALL of the GPL3. Just a link to it as per above. Then upstream should add one and clarify the licensing arrangements. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpsxlkByXtfo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#550031: ITP: libjs-extjs -- a cross-browser JavaScript library
Thomas, It's not my position to get into Debian's debate. I can confirm for you that Ext JS can absolutely be licensed under GPL v3 without qualification. If there is commentary that can be read counter to that, then that is not a good read of what we are saying. From a legal standpoint, Ext JS can be licensed under GPL v3, or alternatively under a Commercial License from Ext JS. We put no conditions on the GPL v3 use, other than those of GPL v3 itself. ~ Adam Nobody is asking for debate, but if you were to write yourself We put no conditions on the GPL v3 use, other than those of GPL v3 itself. ends any starting debate indeed, but then what you have write on your website is kind of confusing (at least to some of us). Now, I wonder what other people from Debian will say after this declaration. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#550031: ITP: libjs-extjs -- a cross-browser JavaScript library
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Thomas Goirand tho...@goirand.fr * Package name: libjs-extjs Version : 3.0.0 Upstream Author : Ext JS LLC licens...@extjs.com * URL : http://www.extjs.com/ * License : GPL-3 Programming Lang: Javascript, PHP Description : a cross-browser JavaScript library A cross-browser JavaScript library for building rich internet applications. . The Ext JS library is widely use in numerous web applications. It includes: high performance, customizable UI widgets, well designed and extensible Component model, qn intuitive, easy to use API, Commercial and Open Source licenses available. Ext JS supports all major web browsers including: Internet Explorer 6+, FireFox 1.5+ (PC, Mac), Safari 3+, Opera 9+ (PC, Mac). Ext products are used by companies all over the world across many industries. Listed below are just a few of those companies: * Adobe * Aetna * AIG * Alcatel-Lucent * Amazon.com * Best Buy * Boeing * Borland * CA * Canon * Capgemini * Cisco * CNN * Dow Jones Co. * EMC * Fidelity * General Electric * Hallmark * HP * HSBC * IBM * Mott MacDonald * NATO * NetApp * Nortel * Northrop Grumman * Panasonic * Pixar Animation Studios * Qualcomm, Inc. * SP * SAP * Siemens * Sony * Symantec * Visa International So I believe it's becomming increasingly important to have this library included in main, as it's the base of many web applications that we would potentially want to include in Debian as well. After I got this library uploaded into Debian, I am wishing to work on some web apps that are using it, namely eXtplorer (an Ajax web file manager, which is important to me as none are included in Debian even if 100s are available for download on the web), ARIA Tree (as I need it for our web hosting panel DTC), and maybe more if I have time. -- System Information: Debian Release: 5.0.3 APT prefers stable APT policy: (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#550031: ITP: libjs-extjs -- a cross-browser JavaScript library
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thomas Goirand skrev: Surely you are aware of the huge controversy around Ext JS licensing. Hell, I missed it. Oh well :-) This doesn't appear at all on the license.txt. Do you think I could still package it for the non-free archive? I don't know. But your first remark illustrates one problem with their licensing policies - they are simply unclear and ambiguous, and by now one must assume that it is intentional. For example it is not clear what it means to license something under GPL with strings attached. It seems (to me) that their interpretation is that users who get Ext under the GPL will *not* be able to redistribute it freely, likewise under the GPL. (In fact that would circumvent their whole dual-licensing policy.) Cheers, Marcus -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkrMoi0ACgkQXjXn6TzcAQmf3gCfUEP6rXAiJ8/sFpEaK6y+IzdF ksMAn2rSvjEYAJm8np2RyDmEDYyeygms =E9zo -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#550031: ITP: libjs-extjs -- a cross-browser JavaScript library
Marcus Better wrote: This is non-free. Please keep it out of Debian. Surely you are aware of the huge controversy around Ext JS licensing. There is no need to repeat that story here, let me just point to this page: http://www.extjs.com/company/dual.php Here they make claims that directly contravene parts of GPL-3: If you derive a commercial advantage by having a closed source solution, you must purchase an appropriate number of commercial licenses from Ext. And this: If you wish to use the open source license of an Ext product, you must contribute all your source code to the open source community and you must give them the right to share it with everyone too. Cheers, Marcus Hell, I missed it. This doesn't appear at all on the license.txt. Do you think I could still package it for the non-free archive? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#550031: ITP: libjs-extjs -- a cross-browser JavaScript library
brian m. carlson wrote: On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 04:13:59PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: Except the issue is not about dual licensing, but about intent being different to what the license actually says. i.e. The GPL3 the code is supposed to be released under doesn't have these obligations, and anybody not contributing back or taking commercial advantage in a closed source solution is in its total rights under the GPL3 license. Also, now that I read it again, the following in the page http://www.extjs.com/company/dual.php: If you wish to use the open source license of an Ext product, you must contribute all your source code to the open source community and you must give them the right to share it with everyone too. may be a fail of the dissident test, as there is the word must. But this is a Quick Overview, and could be considered a bad interpretation or misunderstanding. Anyway, I got in touch with the author, I hope they will reply. If not, I will call them and try to clarify what is the author's intention and explain the Debian view on freeness, plus the fact that their license is raising some controversial opinions that should be avoided if possible. If I get no reply from them, or anything positive, then why should I care doing the packaging in main? Either send it in non-free or just forget about it... Please do not start a 100 post thread in this ITP if this has been discussed in the past (let's not loose time twice on a bad license). I just would like to have a link here to the archive of the old discussion about if one of you can find it. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#550031: ITP: libjs-extjs -- a cross-browser JavaScript library
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thomas Goirand skrev: Please do not start a 100 post thread in this ITP if this has been discussed in the past (let's not loose time twice on a bad license). I just would like to have a link here to the archive of the old discussion about if one of you can find it. I didn't mean to imply that this has been discussed within Debian. There has been a fair amount of discussion on the web though, with several controversial issues: * The previous licensing under LGPL-with-strings-attached [1] * The sudden relicensing from LGPL to GPL [2] * The current GPL-with-conditions license. In particular see the comments by Ext JS founder Jack Slocum [1], who was clearly opposed to redistribution under LGPL (this was before the switch to GPL). See also the Wikipedia talk page [3]. Cheers, Marcus [1] http://mjg59.livejournal.com/84586.html [2] http://graemerocher.blogspot.com/2008/04/choosing-and-oss-license-and-ext-js.html [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ext_(JavaScript_library) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkrM5z4ACgkQXjXn6TzcAQkeiQCfRtVUesvt02pCotsrCRVDsMw0 kxUAnjACf9VeBXc4IJJk8tqr0D/4XPHz =OQ0I -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#550031: ITP: libjs-extjs -- a cross-browser JavaScript library
On Oct 07, Thomas Goirand tho...@goirand.fr wrote: may be a fail of the dissident test, as there is the word must. Which would not make it non-free either, as it is not part of the DFSG. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
