ExtJS, (L)GPL, Jack Slocum, Business and Ethics

27. Apr 2008

Yes I know, the header for this blog is difficult to understand which is my intentions. I really want all the critics of Jack Slocum's change of license behind ExtJS to read it you see. That's why I created a "difficult to interpret header" for this blog. If you're a critic of Jack's change of license then you are my intended audience for this blog!


Finally a foundation you really CAN build on
Image borrowed from ExtJS Website which I assume is OK since I'm trying to reach out and help Jack with this blog of mine...


Last Monday Ext Inc the company behind ExtJS changed their license from a "near LGPL" license to a "pure GPL3" license. This upset a lot of his community since most of his users could previously use ExtJS for free as in "free beer" while after the switch all of his users must now pay to use the library in their closed source applications.

Now several people have argued that this is a purely commercial move, like for instance this guy and several others too. IF that is true, I must really admit that Jack has been creative in ways I don't even am able to DREAM in terms of. To build a community around a "near LGPL" project where you deny forking as a special clause for then later to make the switch to pure GPL to "harvest" all the guys wanting to build Closed Source applications by forcing them into purchasing a commercial license is REALLY un-ethical. However, that is not my point in this blog. I think Jack is a really brilliant developer, and I don't think great developers are able to even think in those cynical ways. I'd like to believe Jack Slocum did this because of the reasons he has already explained which is that previously ExtJS was "quasi Open Source" and got a lot of pepper for it and he wanted to fix those issues.

I personally would like to congratulate Jack Slocum and Ext Inc on finally becoming a "real" Open Source company with a financially viable business model. We've in fact internally speculated that Jack and Co have studied our business model and done a "xerox copy" of our business model. Which would be REALLY funny since we in the upcoming release of Gaia Ajax Widgets have created an exact match of Jack's DOM/CSS-class structure. So I guess if I'm right it would be a real killer argument for the beauty about competition and the free market place! ;)

However the "free beer" guys are now trying to figure out ways to steal ExtJS now adays by contacting lawyers about the legality of forking ExtJS into a so called "OpenEXT" library. All through human history there have been people who believed that one should not pay for things. 1000 years ago we called them "emperors and dictators". 150 years ago we called them "thieves". 50 years ago we called them "communists". And today we call them "free beer OSS evangelists". (as in the ones not creating "free beer OSS" but the ones wanting to CONSUME everything as "free beer"...)

When I look at all the FUD and disruptive thinking, creativeness around trying to steal Jack's intellectual property and innovative ways of trying to rip of Jack and Ext Inc now adays. I can't help but think of the human being Jack Slocum. The Father Jack Slocum, the son Jack Slocum, Husband, Brother and member of the human race Jack Slocum. I think it's time we all acknowledge that Jack has the right to do whatever he wish to do with his own intellectual property. If someone wants to have a "free as in free beer" library, they are free to make one themselves or use any of the already existing ones like jQuery, Prototpye or any other ones out there. What you do NOT have the right to do however is to steal Jack Slocum's intellectual property! Jack has worked really hard to create ExtJS and he has the RIGHT to earn money by asking of his users to do a "Quid Pro Quo". Which basically means; either you create free as in freedom stuff or you PAY for further development of ExtJS by purchasing a commercially enabling license. If you want to build free stuff on top of ExtJS that is still possible. If you don't want to contribute to the community by extending ExtJS then Jack has the right to ask you to PAY him!

Quid Pro Quo
It's not about communism, it's about freedom! Freedom to CHOOSE! NOT Freedom to "not pay"! If you want "freedom to not pay" you should move to China or North Korea.

I have been running "free as in free beer" FOSS project myself for the longest of times. In fact I've probably spent several years of working on SmartWin++ and I can guarantee you that donations does NOT work. A man can only have so many years of doing free as in free beer work before he must start to make a living. Jack has this right, and he is enforcing it! In fact by doing this Jack is finally living up to his own slogan "A Foundation you can Build on" since without money, ExtJS would certainly die within few years. Free as in Free Beer does NOT work! With a commercial business model behind Ext Inc inspired by the want to create FREEDOM stuff but the NEED to earn money ExtJS wil certainly in the long run prosper and actually have the possibility of being maintained also 10 years from now. Without a way to earn money for his family, Jack and Co would grow tired within less than 3 years from now and abandon the project.

Leave Jack ALONE! The Father, Brother, Husband and Human Being Jack Slocum has probably not slept for the entire week! Let him exercise his rights to earn money! He is creating a GREAT JavaScript Ajax library and he DESERVES to be able to enforce Quid Prop Quo on his intellectual property! Stealing will NOT be tolerated! If you want to have "free beer" rights you're free to start with your own _EMPTY_ x.js file! This is NOT CCCP, USSR or North Korea!



AddThis Social Bookmark Button Add to DZone AddThis Feed Button


Tags: philosophy framework open source personal ajax
Comments
RE: ExtJS, (L)GPL, Jack Slocum, Business and Ethics
Posted 27. Apr 2008 by anonymous
Your posts have an original flair that makes them unique. Thanks for the support Thomas. Jack
RE: ExtJS, (L)GPL, Jack Slocum, Business and Ethics
Posted 27. Apr 2008 by anonymous
No-one is disputing Jack's right to his intellectual property or his right to earn money from it. That's fine. Claiming that the people talking about a fork are "thieves", "communists", "emperors and dictators" is one of the worst pieces of FUD I've seen through this sorry story. The fact is that people believe Jack released the code as pure LGPL, and got behind him. Whether he intended to give his property away or not, that is what people took away from his wording; his wording in a legally binding document. A lawyer may claim their conclusion is incorrect, but they saw a promise and want it delivered. I certainly don't believe Jack is an evil genius who had all this planned, and I'm certain he had the best intentions. It can be argued that he did assign the rights to his property to a particular license and, if that is the case, he MUST comply with that, regardless of whether or not that is intention. I sincerely hope we're all learning a lesson about some of the nuances of open source licensing.
In the beginning it was under BSD License
Posted 27. Apr 2008 by anonymous
I started appreciating ExtJS when it was caled Yui-EXT and it was BSD. Being a licenses-aware developer, i wouldn't have touched anything (L)GPL. I loved Jack's work and his courage of giving so much for really FREE having kids to grow. I alwayws expected that Yahoo or Google would put their hands on him, hire him. But they seem to love hiring mediocre figures. Then ExtJS came, it was LGPL + crap and that sounded to me like moves done by other companies in verge of strenghtening their position on their software. So I ceased to use it. A lt of persons cannot read contracts, it seems, and many of them are in the ExtJS community. Ciao, Roebrto.
RE: ExtJS, (L)GPL, Jack Slocum, Business and Ethics
Posted 28. Apr 2008 by anonymous
Forking projects is nothing new in the world of open source; one could easily argue that the "freedom to fork" is a cornerstone of open source. If you don't want your product forked, don't release it as open source, or don't give people sufficient reason to go through the effort of making the fork. Going through two license changes in a year or so, and taking an extraordinarily expansive view on how those licenses should be interpreted, is going to be sufficient reason for any project with sufficient users. The folk who are trying to fork Ext JS 2.0.2 (or whatever the pre-GPL version was) are attempting to work through how to handle the two "riders" Mr. Slocum attached to the LGPL: the proprietary assets license and the "no you can't fork it" proxy on the LGPL itself. The former is probably a matter of replacing the assets with free-and-clear equivalents. In terms of the latter, with luck, they'll find out a legal way to do fork it, or will perhaps re-implement ExtJS's public API with their own implementation, or will create an ExtJS-compatible layer over Dojo or something. I suspect that they'll simply try to declare that the "no you can't fork it" proxy is of dubious legality and unenforceable, and that's when the lawsuits begin. If you feel that people attempting to use a product in accordance with its license terms is somehow unethical, I feel sorry for you. Either people will use your product in accordance with its license terms (which you will feel is unethical), or people will not use your product (which you will feel is financially unpleasant). Bear in mind, somebody could just as easily be forking your product into a separate project, under the terms of GPLv2, so long as they abide by those license terms. For an example of a forked project, you might consider reading up on the Mambo/Joomla! fork: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joomla
I don't want to steal anything
Posted 28. Apr 2008 by anonymous
On the contrary, I want to comply with terms of the license under which I received ExtJS. LGPL requires me to redistribute any changes that I make back to anyone who receives my application, under terms of LGPL and no extra restrictions. I was planning to contribute my patches back to ExtJS LLC and redistribute or reference "official" version with my source. Alas, Jack's license change made this impossible. I then proceeded to set up a sourceforge project where I can redistribute the changes on my own to comply with LGPL. Jack responded on gwt-ext forum that I should consult my license lawyer because I can not redistribute his "assets" with modified versions of javascript. So now I am going to structure any of my patches so that they can be used on top of UNMODIFIED ext-js 2.0.2, in the same way regular application code would. Given my obligations under LGPL, I don't see any other way out of dilemma other than throwing 9 months of hard work that I have put writing my application on top of gwt-ext + ExtJS. And I am not doing that just because someone released their own product under a wrong license and now wants to take it back.
RE: ExtJS, (L)GPL, Jack Slocum, Business and Ethics
Posted 28. Apr 2008 by thomas
Howdy, I truly understand the forking parts of projects and I respect them myself of course. Though you (Sanji) are not the only one talking about forking. Others are talking too about it. Also I think the motives behind the LGPL exception Jack originally created was to avoid forking, which he has the right to do. Which means you are on muddy waters when creating a "kind of fork" project. Sanji; I think you have alternatives to OpenEXT. I just don't think trying to circumvent Jack's original motives are one of them... Why don't you begin with talking to him...?
About legality of forks
Posted 28. Apr 2008 by anonymous
Thomas: Well, regardless of legality of distributing modified code, patching legally present unmodified code at runtime, as OpenEXT project is going to do, is pretty widespread even against closed-source, commercial software. Otherwise debuggers, antiviruses and emulators would be outlawed long ago. As for Jack's original motives, he unfortunately chose to articulate them as "Ext is also licensed under the terms of the Open Source LGPL 3.0 license." in the license distributed with ExtJS 2.0.2
RE: ExtJS, (L)GPL, Jack Slocum, Business and Ethics
Posted 28. Apr 2008 by anonymous
Sorry, someone has to say it: your post title is misleading and makes me angry. I do understand Jack's position. I do not pretend to attack him by doing what he finds better for his project and his family. But I do find your way of attracting attention a total waste of (my) time. Next time, just put the appropiate title and get the corresponding number of visits. Man, if I could digg you down, I would.
RE: ExtJS, (L)GPL, Jack Slocum, Business and Ethics
Posted 28. Apr 2008 by anonymous
Boils down to this: people (like me) started to use ExtJS under the guise of LGPL/free. Now we've invested time developing with that library. Then the developer of that library tells us that he's decided to get nasty and start charging. Where does that leave us? If he had stated the intent to charge from the get-go, fine. But this is classic bait and switch.
RE: ExtJS, (L)GPL, Jack Slocum, Business and Ethics
Posted 28. Apr 2008 by anonymous
Isn't the release of extjs before the licence change still LGPL? Am I wrong?
RE: ExtJS, (L)GPL, Jack Slocum, Business and Ethics
Posted 28. Apr 2008 by anonymous
GO YUI! GO QOOXDOO!! They're BSD / OPEN and they're getting better than ExtJS. Roberto
RE: ExtJS, (L)GPL, Jack Slocum, Business and Ethics
Posted 28. Apr 2008 by anonymous
This statement is ridiculous: "All through human history there have been people who believed that one should not pay for things. 1000 years ago we called them "emperors and dictators". 150 years ago we called them "thieves". 50 years ago we called them "communists". And today we call them "free beer OSS evangelists"." Very over the top and completely inaccurate - semantically, topically, factually and historically. In other words - Bullsh*t.
RE: ExtJS, (L)GPL, Jack Slocum, Business and Ethics
Posted 28. Apr 2008 by thomas
Hi straw-dogs, you lost the LAST part which was crucial for giving meaning to my whole sentence... ;)
RE: ExtJS, (L)GPL, Jack Slocum, Business and Ethics
Posted 28. Apr 2008 by anonymous
The problem is that Ext LLC has shown the propensity to change things "on the fly." Have we seen the last license change? My guess is we haven't. I think it's important to understand that there are some major investments going on... learning curves, dev time, and community effort which should be mutually respected by both users/developers and Ext LLC. The violation of this mutual respect happened twice by Ext and now the user base (rightfully so) decided to fork it in effort to protect their investments. I think it would be insane for the user's to not maintain a fork for when another license change happens and they need to revert to an open version. On the other hand, if Ext users are making money from using Ext then they should buy a license at a reasonable price. If you're not making money then you should contribute with patches, extensions, etc.
RE: ExtJS, (L)GPL, Jack Slocum, Business and Ethics
Posted 28. Apr 2008 by anonymous
@LastGuy I completely agree in the "changing part" and I don't support it, however as you state yourself. If you're using it commercially you should pay. And the only difference in their new license is that they are now (practically) DEMANDING their "commercial users" to pay now instead of having all the "free beer" guys getting the whole barn for free ;) And in fact now with a PURE GPL it is for the first time POSSIBLE to fork the library, people trying "license walkaround schemes" to keep the "free as in free beer version" I personally think says more about their REAL motives than about their purity of ethics and so on...
RE: ExtJS, (L)GPL, Jack Slocum, Business and Ethics
Posted 28. Apr 2008 by anonymous
NB: Jack's company is an LLC, not an Inc. Otherwise, good writeup.
RE: ExtJS, (L)GPL, Jack Slocum, Business and Ethics
Posted 29. Apr 2008 by anonymous
Jack could rethink the license switch and start earning money through support and the offering of (commercial) tools, and custom implementations (applications) of the ExtJS. He could also do what many other projects do, have an open (to use and distribute) base implementation and offer closed (for a fee) add-ons. I think that would get him on a better road to success than the one currently taken...
RE: ExtJS, (L)GPL, Jack Slocum, Business and Ethics
Posted 29. Apr 2008 by anonymous
What you're suggesting is virtually proven not to work... :S Quid Pro Quo is the only proven (think Trolltech, MySQL and US) viable business model for OS libraries...
You're an idiot.
Posted 16. May 2008 by anonymous
The project touted itself as open source, got support because of it, and now is retracting the open license and threatening legal action against the very people that donated to the project and helped make it great. Your whole rant about paying for commercial licensing with ExtJS is bunk too, since Jack took free code (Yahoo UI) himself and is now selling it.
RE: ExtJS, (L)GPL, Jack Slocum, Business and Ethics
Posted 16. May 2008 by anonymous
The project is STILL Open Source (GPL is Open Source too you know, some even claims that GPL is the ONLY "real" Open Source license around, Richard Stallman the inventor of Open Source among others) YUI was licensed under BSD. You are free to do whatever you wish with BSD licensed stuff including using it in your own libraries which can be licensed under another license than BSD. Microsoft are using BSD Sockets in Windows. Mac OS X is built from FreeBSD. We even use Prototype.js and ScriptAculous which are both MIT licensed.

 
Title

Comment

Website (leave to drop):

Proof for having a heart, not a CPU
Captcha

Legal note: the meaning and content expressed on these blogs don't necassary correspond with the meaning of the legal company Gaiaware AS, but are considered to be personal opinions and expressions.