They still tout themselves as open source and free, but it’s very much a bait and switch scenario. It’s legal but unethical.

Furthermore, the difference now with GPL vs the “Ext License” is that its clear, legal, and fair for the open source community. Their old license sucked. Jack even admits it. So give the guy a break.

My point was that the licenses under which software is released directly affects the model under which you can do business. The products you listed are all good examples of systems that use GPL software. However, we’re not talking about Linux or TiVo, we’re talking about websites. That’s a completely different business than operating systems, set-top boxes, or routers — and by changing to a copyleft license, the Ext team potentially did major damage to the businesses that relied on their software.

Obviously, I know my view might differ from others on what should and should not be released under the GPL. I was merely asserting my opinion on the matter. Richard Stallman can disagree if he wants.

If you read my blog you know I’m a stout believer in open-source, but I’m still a software developer by trade, and a capitalist at heart. This isn’t really about supporting open-source or protecting your intellectual property, though. In my opinion, the Ext team just used the GPL as leverage to try to force people who were already locked into the library to buy commercial license of their product, or completely rethink their business model. That is *not* what the GPL or open-source is all about.

“The GPL is fine for things like operating systems and applications, which are essentially standalone. These products aren’t going to be re-used in other products.”

The TiVo isn’t a product? It reuses Linux and other GPL’d code. So have a variety of routers and other hardware devices, mobile phones, and the like. Linux is an operating system; operating systems are embedded in hardware products.

“However, libraries, frameworks, and any sort of middleware should never, ever, ever be released under a copyleft license like the GPL.”

You are welcome to say that you will never release any of the above under the GPL. Not everyone agrees with you. For example, I feel fairly confident that the FSF disagrees with you.

Those who are interested in Free Software will happily put the GPL on whatever they write, regardless of its field of use, with the express intent of using it to encourage others to create GPL’d software. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean everyone doesn’t like it or it “should never, ever, ever” be done — others have different values than do you.

“Ask yourself: are you really going to build your business model around the license of a library like Ext?”

Some businesses have: Red Hat, Canonical, Mozilla Corp., etc. are all based on GPL products, to pick three off the top of my head.

“At best, this is a terrible blunder on the part of the Ext team, and at worst, it’s a blatant misuse of open-source licenses. This is not what the GPL and the LGPL were created for.”

Sure it is. The GPL was created to promote the creation of Free Software. Despite popular opinion, that’s not a polar opposite to having a profit motive.

“Of course, all this nonsense begs the question: how do you GPL a web application, anyway?”

Now here you get to the nub of the problem. Using the GPL for middleware, while you feel is inappropriate, at least is fairly clear-cut in terms of boundaries. A GPL’d Javascript library is less so. For example:

“If your server-side code generates markup, then yes, you need to open-source it.”

I challenge anyone to find terms in the GPL (v2 or v3) that supports this notion. By this argument, Microsoft Visual Studio must be released under the GPL, since it is possible for Visual Studio to generate output that can be linked with GPL’d code. Heck, Microsoft Office must be released under the GPL, since it is possible for it to generate output (documents) that link to GPL’d VBA macros.

IANAL, but I did consult for a few years on open source while with CollabNet and have had a fair number of licensing discussions with bigwigs in the open source arena. IMHO, a GPL’d Javascript library would require other Javascript that directly called its functions to be released under the GPL, and that’s it.

But, as you point out, this is a really murky area, and until it gets settled out (the way the GPL/DLL issue got settled out a decade or so ago), it is best to tread warily with GPL’d Javascript code.

I follow your point, but to me it’s more an issue of trust than of defense. They have every right to defend their intellectual property, but the bottom line is that under the GPL, Ext is no better protected than under the LGPL. The switch will not stop the large companies that Jack refers to from using the library out of license — it just means that the smaller operations, including open-source projects, non-profits, or just people that can’t afford the license, that were relying on Ext are now forced to cough up a large amount of money or completely re-engineer their product. A license is a two-way assertion of trust between the publisher and the user, and by switching licenses, the Ext team has violated that trust.