Quoting Brad Hubbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Dushan Savich wrote: >> It would be a lot easier to just deploy ExtJS 2.02 with witty , >> wouldn't it :) ? >> Dushan >> > Dushan, > > Consider the licensing issues involved.
Now that's a good question, really. ExtJS used to be LGPLv2 + commercial, then moved to GPLv3 + commercial. Wt is GPLv2 + commercial. And I wonder why Wt is not licensed under the GPLv3, too, given that the GPLv3 would protect Emweb from people developing applications and not redistributing them, which is, I would say, extremely usual in web applications. Say, for instance, eBay, Google or Yahoo decide to start using Wt: as they are not distributing their source, the GPLv2 does not require them to distribute their source or buy Wt licenses, but the GPLv2 would require them to distribute their source or buy Wt licenses. Koen, Wim? -- Pau Garcia i Quiles http://www.elpauer.org (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ witty-interest mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/witty-interest
