[Bug 471509] Review Request: extjs - Ext JS is a cross-browser JavaScript library for building rich internet applications.

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471509


Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tcallawa at redhat.com
             Blocks|182235                      |




--- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com>  2008-11-14 16:56:49 EDT ---
Okay, so let me explain this.

The latest version of ExtJS claims to be under GPLv3 with an exception,
documented here: http://extjs.com/products/floss-exception.php

RH Legal is firm that this exception clause isn't valid.

One of the conditions for the exception is:

  the Derivative Work can reasonably be considered independent and
  separate work that is intended for use by end-users and not as a
  library for software development purposes.

This doesn't make sense. "Independent and separate" from what?  By
definition the Derivative Work is formed by combining Ext with some
FLOSS work, so it can't be "independent and separate" from those. 

Moreover, how do you determine whether a Derivative Work is "intended
for use by end-users and not as a library for software development
purposes"?  Well, to some degree you might be able to, but it raises
disturbing questions.  This sounds very much like a field-of-use
limitation.  If any such work actually were declared to be "intended
for use solely by end-users" surely that would make such a work
non-free.  (Non-open-source, even.)  Does "not as a library for
software development purposes" suggest that the Derivative Work must
be under terms that prohibit modification?  At best this is
disturbingly unclear.

There are a couple of other points one could make as well. 

The sum conclusion here is that Fedora and its users are not safe to use the
exception clause in ExtJS. However, there is no barrier to using it under
GPLv3.

This means unfortunately that items like Testopia are right out, due to license
incompatibility with GPLv3, but it doesn't prevent ExtJS from inclusion in
Fedora on its own merit. BE SURE that anything you use with ExtJS is compatible
with GPLv3!

All of this text needs to go in a file in the package called
"README-Fedora-Licensing", and the spec needs to reflect it like this:

# The FLOSS Exception is NOT VALID for this package, see:
# README-Fedora-Licensing
License: GPLv3

... Lifting FE-Legal

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.