On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Jim Fulton wrote:
> [snip]
> > can you elaborate with a few more sentences
> > > why?
> > >
> >
> > I could, but I'd rather not.  I suggest reading:
> >
> >  http://mjg59.livejournal.com/84586.html
> >
> > if you haven't already.
> >
> I concur with Jim - let's avoid ExtJS as their license is not clear.
> When I studied th details of the ExtJS license, I came away with the same
> conclusions as this blogger before I read that blog. I was interested in the
> discussions surrounding it because of this; I'd already decided not to use
> it. Don't think that since they mention it's LGPL it actually *is* LGPL -
> it's clear their intent is different.
> ExtJS is not *actually* licensed under the LGPL. The LGPL appears nowhere
> in their source code; it has its own license. They seem to think they can
> invoke the terms of the LGPL and then restrict them further to forbid use in
> a larger framework.
> See also my comment here:
> http://reddit.com/r/reddit.com/info/6enr7/comments/

i found this jack's (extjs author) comments on this thread illuminating
(more so the original livejournal link).. nutshell is as you said, that
extjs is not released under the LGPL. All appearances, claims, and links on
their site not withstanding...


matt assay did a blog post which sums my opinion of their licensing..


too bad, its a great toolkit.


Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to