Ext JS License change and personal attacks

119 Responses to “Ext JS License change and personal attacks”

1. As a newly formed businessman you should soon discover that your broader “user” base is not as vocal nor as interested in these debates / issues (you know, the ones with money that actually use your product). As important and fundamental as this issue is it’s disappointing to hear you being dragged in to this type of “administration”. I’d rather wake up reading about the innovation / leadership EXT is providing (which historically has been the case). Innovation occurs in open and closed source worlds. I really don’t care what yours is as long as it’s compatible with my business objectives.

   Like it or not this is a capitalist market - you must exchange money to play. You are under no obligation to distribute your IP according to someone else’s rules. The market will ultimately decide wether it agrees with you or not. I see your model akin to “freemium” which nobody should dispute is effective and fair.

   In deciding to use your framework I read the licensing options and felt they were reasonable (supported what I needed to do). In fact, it seemed like you are running things with an eye toward building a sustainable business which is strategically important to us since we’re hooking up in a pretty substantial way.

   Follow your dreams, amaze your customers, keep thinking for yourself and don’t let the special interest groups get in your head.

   Keep up the great work Jack and get some rest.

   Steve
   April 26th, 2008
   9:15 am

2. Jack,

   I don’t know you or Sanjiv in any way but for this exchange, and I can tell you (and Sanjiv who a really hope is reading this) that we have very serious project underway using GWT and Ext. We started using gwt-ext. We are now DUMPING GWT-EXT and forever avoiding anything ever touched by Sanjiv.

   We are fans of Ext, fans of paying for software when payment is due, and expect great things from GXT. Thanks.

   Mike Hoefer
   April 26th, 2008
   1:08 pm

3. @Steve

   Thanks for your informative reply. I agree 100% and have for a long time avoided these types of discussions. There really is nothing that can come of them that is positive - for either side. However, because of the personal nature of these attacks I felt a need to reply. You are right though and I already wish I hadn’t replied.

   @Mike

   Thank you for the vote of confidence. I really appreciate it.

   Jack Slocum
   April 26th, 2008
   2:22 pm

4. After reading your post, I went in search of Sanjiv’s “Ext Plus”.. Then I finally found the hidden link http://gwt-ext.googlecode.com/svn/gwt-plus.html Its not even advertised on the gwt-ext site.

   Wow.. I’m speechless.

   Hurry up on Ext GWT!!

   Bill
   April 26th, 2008
   3:10 pm

5. Jack,

   Sanjiv obviously has motives of his own. Don’t fall into the trap of arguing with someone who has no leg to stand on. Although your supporters might not be as vocal as the freetards, your decision was a good one.

   Go spend some time with your family it’s Saturday!

   Lou D.
   April 26th, 2008
   3:18 pm

6. […] I have publicly tried to stay out of the discussion, but today Jack published his thoughts and timeline, as well as frustrations with personal attacks. […]

   Ajaxian » Ext JS and the fun with Open Source licenses
   April 26th, 2008
   3:26 pm

7. Jack, I know little about the controversy between Ext and GWT-Ext, but I commend you for switching to the GPL in order to address the problems with the Ext License. I’m sure you objected to the tone of CNet’s and Matthew Garrett’s blog posts, but they raised legitimate points, and I’m happy you realized that continuing with the “no toolkit/framework” restriction wasn’t going to work.

   Andrew Dupont
   April 26th, 2008
   3:33 pm

8. Jack,

   I went through the same thing myself. You are always going to have vocal whiners.

   The fact of the matter is that you have a great product and people are more than happy to reward you for your hard work and amazing product.

   Keep up the good work and all of us will keep supporting you!

   Eric J. Smith
   April 26th, 2008
   3:47 pm

9. Jack,

   What’s really sad is that your whole reasoning is the one of a closed source company that want to protect it’s intellectual property by all means.

   You said you will notice any people forking your 2.0.2 code that his near-LGPL but that is not LGPL (which has mislead many many people in thinking it was open).

   You talk all the time about competition that could rip off your code without giving you money. You seem to fear competition.

   And I don’t understand why you do. ExtJS is great and regardless of companies using it for free you would do great. The reason is that you have the brand and that LGPL would have protected your code and your brand.

   This is exactly the behavior of closed source companies.

   You cannot want to have the behavior of a closed source company and wanting at the same time the benefits of open source with the community and all the bells and whistles.

   Ludovic
   XWiki, LGPL without additions

   Ludovic Dubost
   April 26th, 2008
   4:27 pm

10. Jack,

    Don’t feel bad. You appear to have said your peace in a respectful and straight-forward way (something which can’t be said for half the nay-sayers around the license change). Personally it seems a lot of people wanting something for nothing - sure no license is going to be perfect but if they have a problem they should man up and buy a commercial license. Good work with everything and people need to realize a business is a business and you are doing people a favour with th dual license.

    For what it’s worth you have my support.

    James

    James Hughes
    April 26th, 2008
    4:46 pm

11. Jack,

    you are trying to have it both ways — you want to have the advantages of being an open source developer while expecting people to purchase your software as if it were a commercial package.

    a tonne of people will use Ext if you revert back to open source (like how things were in the beginning before Ext 1) but if you go commercial you will lose that “open dev” appeal and its user base. You have to make a decision, but you can’t have it both ways.

    in addition, using your children (”I have a third child on the way”) is a poor attempt of sympathy. If you can’t make enough money to support your family with an open source Ext JS you are 1) either doing something wrong or 2) you simply can’t do it — therefore find another way to make money.

    what’s sadder is that I donated money to Ext before it became Ext 1.0 in order to keep things free. And now that it is going commercial it infuriates me.

    It appears that you got donations from us and got the free marketing when Ext was entirely free, now that you have a user base you are trying to turn a profit from us. This is disgusting.

    I am glad I left the Ext JS community a year or two ago. There are plenty of other packages out there that are free and won’t try to make a buck off you, have better support and foster a better community (there are too many asshats in the Ext forums, one of them being one of the moderators).

    Jack, make a decision (open or commercial or discontinue Ext JS and find another job) — when you do make the decision stick with it and get back to spending your energy in a constructive manner.

    For those of you who aren’t interested in this soap opera I suggest you look at other libraries:

    dojo
    mootools
    Yahoo UI!

    and plenty other *free* ones

    Sam Smythe
    April 26th, 2008
    5:02 pm

12. Can at least some of ushear RMS (yes, that bearded apostle-like much-hated egomaniac who wrote the GPL) the words : “I told you so” in a wise, deep tone…?

    This is exactly what the GPL was designed to prevent - fragmentation is the correct word.
    And the GPL does not prohibit dual-licensing at all.
    You make money, free software users get code for free and everyone gets the best patches.
    Read the GPL over and over and the GPL FAQ over and over.
    You’ll not find a better license to protect your rights as a user and as a programmer.
    About Managers, CXOs and PHB’s I’m not too sure :-)

    Full support here JAck, you’ve actually taught the importance of the GPL to a large majority of misinformed web developers. The great idea seems to be making money by ripping off a framework with an anarchous license and selling it for money and a desired name on the front. This, when there are now enough app engines (EC2, Google, Yahoo, Facebook) to make full apps. There’s tons of data API and thousands of good services waiting to be implemented. Catch up on Tim Berners-Lee’s vision of the next generation of the web.
    Jack, I think you should go right ahead and dual-license without a secodn thought. If nobody donates, you have every right to earn and you are not hiolding back the community in any way.

    Given enough quality brains, all features are implementable by the community and it all goes back into the source as well. Can;t be nicer than this for users and you (Jack).

    As for the complainers, they could as well get hold of real customers and implement the changes they want to keep private as contractors and do much of the work in duplicate at other client locations and get paid more for it
    Couldn’t you guys figure out this much?
    Well, it’s called earning from support. All you have to do is let go of the snatching-and-egg-hatching hardwired into your brains because of excessive exposure to commercial closed source.
    Drop that barrier and see how free it feels in the head and light on the pocket, while it means nothing bad to your bank account.
    Yes, the GPL is mighty impressive legal and economic hack. It works and it’s better than you think. Just that you have to think differently
    Remove the PEBKAC and your opposition to the GPL will vanish. It’s neither viral nor the plague.
    Would you consider injecting oxygen into the suffocating closed-source-driven market, a bad thing?
    It’s not viruses being injected. It’s oxygen being spread (not too much, you can dual license commercial/GPL without a problem (after all, too much oxygen can burn as well)
    All in all, nice job done.
    Feel free to point out any flaws in what I’m saying.
    The GPL is as close to everyone-friendly as legalese can ever get

    2stepsback
    April 26th, 2008
    5:27 pm

13. Jack

    Coming from a corporate environment we dont care if you charge for a library or not as long as it doesnt cost a fortune(yours does not). Libraries are considered better when paid for since we hope it will be supported in the future when we need it. The problem with the choices you have made is the change of license affects a lot of our clients and management doesnt like these things because it complicates things for them. Now they have to revisit this scenario all over. On top of it people who recommended your library will have to respond to managements questions which is people like me.
    Another thing this is the internet I dont want people googling for ext and finding this or other articles bad mouthing etc. Please keep this to your personal emails and it will be good for you and Sanjiv and EXT community as such.

    Max
    April 26th, 2008
    5:34 pm

14. Jack, I’ve read over the background materials once again and want to address the dispute you’re having with Sanjiv. Here’s what I think:

    1. He impugns your character and tries to read motives into your decisions. That’s clearly a mistake. You can’t make a convincing argument if you assume bad faith on your opponent’s part.

    2. His tone is out-of-proportion with the act that caused it (your posting on his forums in order to clarify the 2.0.2 license terms). He’s clearly been pissed off for a while and deemed this to be the “last straw.”

    3. There is a giant disconnect between your view of the 2.0.2 license and the view of many people — including Sanjiv, Alex Russell, Matthew Garrett, Matt Asay, and myself. When Matthew redistributes ExtJS under the LGPL, he is not “disregarding” your Ext License; he is following its terms to the letter. His reading of the license is one that gives him those rights. I think his reading is correct and yours is not.

    Let’s try a mental exercise: picture all the people on earth who have downloaded Ext 2.0.2 under the terms of the LGPL. The Ext License itself states that they are governed by the terms of the LGPL. The LGPL states that software covered by the LGPL can have no additional licensing terms. Therefore, all of those people have the right to redistribute Ext 2.0.2 under the LGPL — and, in fact, would explicitly be prohibited from including your license. (As long as they removed the packaged assets, which carry a separate license.)

    By your reading of the Ext License, if any of those people had an intent to distribute Ext 2.0.2 before they downloaded it from you, then they would not be allowed to download it under the terms of the LGPL. You can’t tell people they’re allowed to download Ext 2.0.2 under the LGPL (which permits redistribution) only if they don’t intend to redistribute it. If that was your aim, you should’ve removed that clause from the LGPL and named the resulting license something else.

    In a comment on Matthew’s blog post, you say:

    Our I.P. council is very well known and very well respected and I imagine they gave us sound advice in helping us achieve this goal.

    You’re wrong to assume this. They screwed up big time.

    4. With the exception of Sanjiv’s message, which is out-of-line, you need to take all of this less personally. Framing it in terms of the family you need to support and the time you’ve invested suggests you view this as Jack Against The Philistines, in which you protect your creation from those who would try to rob you of security and well-being. For instance, you said this in the GWT-Ext thread:

    On a personal level, I see any effort to fork as someone trying to steal two years of 16 hour days, my entire life savings and probably all of my gray hairs from me.

    This is unfair. Any effort to fork is done under a good-faith reading of your very own Ext License. If you wanted to make forking impossible, you shouldn’t have gotten within ten miles of the LGPL in the first place.

    I’ll say once again that Sanjiv’s message is an unfair personal attack. But you seem to be conflating his attack with the well-meaning actions of others you mention — like Matthew Garrett, Matt Asay, and Alex Russell. Don’t. They’re committed to the open-source community and have no motive to screw you over.

    5. I’ll repeat my earlier praise of Ext’s new licensing strategy. The “quid pro quo” framing makes it clear that you are just as invested in the preservation of the OSS community as you are in the preservation of your financial security.

    Andrew Dupont
    April 26th, 2008
    5:48 pm

15. Ugh, you should not have done this ‘he said, I said’ rant, this reflects very badly on the project, regardless of the facts. Changing the license is kind of sneaky even if the reasons are good. I don’t care why you did it, only that you did it. Since you can’t beat free, you will lose users over this, but they are not paying customers anyway. However, by blogging in this way, you could also lose the paying customers.

    mike
    April 26th, 2008
    5:59 pm

16. Just wanted to say: Thank you!
    Thank you so much for your *truly* outstanding framework.
    There will be always someone complaining,
    but just try to ignore them (if possible).
    I’m sure most of your users are more than happy to comply
    with whatever license you provide.

    John
    April 26th, 2008
    6:05 pm

17. Thanks everyone for your posts.

    I in no way meant to make it sound as if Matt Asay, Alex Russell or Dion Almaer were in any way related to Sanjiv’s outburst. Their comments were all with good intentions and indirectly led to positive outcome (IMO) which is Ext’s open source license being a single, OSI approved license. I added a note in the post above to that effect.

    @Andrew Dupont

    I agree with most of what you said and I thank you for taking the time to post. One point where I do disagree though is on this statement “Any effort to fork is done under a good-faith reading of your very own Ext License.”.

    Here’s an excerpt from the license:

    “If you plan to distribute Ext in a product that will be packaged or sold as a software
    development library, toolkit or plug-in-based framework (”LIBRARY”), we require that you
    work with us to establish a specific license that is appropriate. Use of the open source
    license in a LIBRARY is not permitted without explicit permission from Ext JS, LLC.”

    I don’t believe that anyone could read the old license and come away feeling that a fork is ok. If they choose to ignore and/or challenge that restriction how can that be called “good-faith reading of your very own Ext License”?

    Jack Slocum
    April 26th, 2008
    6:49 pm

18. Jack:

    Please allow me to clarify: I have not publicly “attacked” you. I have *privately* asked for clarification and shared my view of your actions and if you read that post of mine that you’re linking to, it’s not an “attack” in any sense. It’s a rubric for understanding how good licensing matters to users of *any* OSS project. It’s the rationale that allows us (as a community) to trust what comes out of the ASF, Eclipse, the Python Software Foundation, the Dojo Foundation, etc. and it helps explain the drama which is caused by licensing changes like those imposed by MySQL and Trolltech. Further, it helps potential users of OSS projects understand their potential risk profile. I didn’t mention projects by name in that post, but if you think it’s singling out Ext, I can assure you that it wasn’t.

    We started Dojo as a way to bring people together and part of that decision was a series of explicit steps designed to reduce the potential for licensing drama. You can take my explanation of that reasoning as an attack if you like, but that wasn’t the spirit in which my post was made and it’s not the spirit under which we started Dojo as a project to unify the DHTML world’s then-disparate efforts, built the toolkit on a flat playing field, and work with anyone who will join us on those same even-handed terms to improve the state of Open Source JavaScript.

    We (the Dojo Foundation) have repeatedly offered our assistance to you and anyone else doing OSS JavaScript to help them navigate these same licensing shoals and I again extend that offer to you personally and directly: you’ve got our ear and we’ll offer whatever advice we can. Since it seems unlikely that you’ll bring Ext as a project to the Dojo Foundation, that’s probably the best we can do, but projects that *do* join the Foundation also get an existing structure that helps them avoid all of these issues from day one.

    In closing: I’m not attacking you, *haven’t* attacked you, and won’t. Instead, I’ve offered advice, clarification, and my view on what is best for the community of OSS JavaScript at large and will continue to do so.

    Regards

    Alex Russell
    April 26th, 2008
    7:13 pm

19. Alex,

    I probably added the addition (in bold in the post, “Mentioning these guys above is in no way meant to be negative and I thank these guys for their positive indirect influence on improving the Ext open source license.”) to clarify what I meant in that block while you were writing your post and I apologize if what I said was worded in a way that was easily misconstrued.

    You never personally attacked me, however you did have some harsh things to say about the old license. And it was warranted. I appreciate the criticism since I know it was with positive intentions.

    Best of luck,
    Jack

    Jack Slocum
    April 26th, 2008
    7:32 pm

20. Well, this is sad for everyone especially for the customers. We’re going to loose. Basically everyone is a bit right but not all right.

    Jack just buggered up Ext GWT 1.0 since it hasn’t established itself yet. I feel for Darrell since the day before it was released on the extjs website he said it will be released as LGPL (http://mygwt.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1207&highlight=). You made him look like a fool. It is a real shame. So much potential.

    In the end, extjs will do ok since it has a number of customers using the library and is a good library. Not sure if you will attract new customers this way though. I was about to be a customer but luckily I only invested 3 weeks into your product.

    It is also a shame that you and Sjivan are conversing on this level since both of you would benefit tremendously of having a good relationship. We understand both of your viewpoints but really Jack what did you expect when you changed the licensing that way without telling anyone including Darrell and he started to work at your company! The link above proved he didn’t know (on April 21st for Christ sake).

    I don’t like the personal attack and there shouldn’t be. I do think it is the result of frustration, surprise and everyone’s unwillingness to compromise.

    This sux.

    D

    Dean
    April 26th, 2008
    7:47 pm

21. Jack,

    As usual, no good deed goes unpunished. The majority of the “users” who seek to benefit from your hard work do not they are standing on your shoulders while spitting down on you.

    Those of us whose companies have supported Ext since day one have nothing but admiration for your work ethic and incredible ability to support your user community. We were elated to see you form your LLC and look forward to using your products.

    Keep up the good work and forget the loud minority.

    Claude
    April 26th, 2008
    7:47 pm

22. (This blog needs a preview feature for comments and/or a clear description of what sort of markup is allowed.

    Jack, you ask:

    “I don’t believe that anyone could read the old license and come away feeling that a fork is ok. If they choose to ignore and/or challenge that restriction how can that be called ‘good-faith reading of your very own Ext License’?”

    Two possible reasons.

    First: the passage you cite does not specifically address forks. It appears to be more concerned with higher-level frameworks that bundle Ext, rather than with an adaptation/modification of Ext’s own source code.

    Second: since a fork is just a specialized case of redistribution, my arguments for why redistribution is not a violation of the LGPL portion of the Ext License apply to forking as well. In typical geek fashion, I imagine many people simply reject the portions of the license that they deem nonsensical.

    I don’t use Ext and have no reason to fork 2.0.2, but based on my reading of the license I think I’d be able to do so without any moral or legal conflict. Except in the extremely unlikely case that a court rules on the true force of your Ext License, an individual’s honest assessment of the license’s meaning (*not* its *intended* meaning, but the literal meaning of its words) is all he has to go on.

    Moreover: I came across this blog post which criticizes your decision to move to the GPL and expresses many of the same views as Sanjiv did. It borders on tinfoil-hat paranoia to suggest that starting with the LGPL and later moving to the GPL was a _calculated move_ on your part, one designed to attract a large development community and then “trick” them into buying commercial licenses. But for many of the concerns raised, an explicit endorsement of a 2.0.2 fork would be the perfect refutation. It’d demonstrate without doubt that moving to the GPL was not a money-grabbing move.

    (What a bizarre universe we live in where one has to demonstrate that usage of a viral, free-as-in-speech-and-in-beer license is not a cynical, capitalist ploy.)

    Andrew Dupont
    April 26th, 2008
    8:13 pm

23. @Dean

    We have always tried to work with other members of the open source community at Ext JS. This isn’t limited to Sanjiv, but other projects as well. Various parts of Ext JS are under more liberal licenses specifically so they can be used by other projects.

    We are also currently having drafted a similar exception to the FLOSS Exception provided by MySQL to continue to allow non-GPL based open source projects to use Ext JS. However these things take time - lawyers aren’t known for moving quickly.

    Jack

    Jack Slocum
    April 26th, 2008
    8:15 pm

24. Heads up, Jack!

    Rough times now but I’m sure you’ll look back some time and know it was worth it. Despite personal attacks and false assumptions made by people who are not admiring the effort you put into Ext, there’s a large community behind you that understands your framework just as the way it is: An outstanding piece of work that deserves to be managed as the founders intend to!

    I wish you all the best, and may the dust settle soon so we can all go back and concentrate on pushing Ext forward!

    Thorsten
    April 26th, 2008
    8:23 pm

25. Now all you need is a script to:

    1. Download the web.
    2. Find all copies of any of your css or assets.
    3. Contact the owner with a lawsuit
    4. Profit!

    Now we call you the JSIAA

    !!!

    ben
    April 26th, 2008
    8:25 pm

26. […] I have publicly tried to stay out of the discussion, but today Jack published his thoughts and timeline, as well as frustrations with personal attacks. […]

    Javascript News » Blog Archive » Ext JS and the fun with Open Source licenses
    April 26th, 2008
    8:29 pm

27. Stay away from these oss then commercial projects, not worth the time. You probably will never need all the features these libraries provide in your particular app anyway, why not just build the stuff you need your self and forget about the license worries. Remember, you can always learn from these projects on how things are done without copying

    John
    April 26th, 2008
    8:39 pm

28. Give ‘em hell, Jack. Been using your libraries since 0.33 — can’t imagine web development without them.

    Seriously, though, don’t be too dismayed by this — this is a textbook case. “When you’re the guy on the top, it’s easier to throw stones at you” — you get the picture. Deep down, some people just get jealous.

    captainskyhawk
    April 26th, 2008
    9:08 pm

29. We are the most commited OpenSource company in the hell country called Indonesia, where all people that said they are opensourcer but they develop propietary and several do a bad contract to several of their client like cannot opensourced several bugs fixed bla bla bla.. silly thing happen.

    I have operate OpenSource business here more than 7 years, and with local market that bad, my english that also not good. I try to survive, and almost of my client that use my code, refactor and rebrand the code, and never contribute, but complain when they have problem to me.. and several people make an annoying sounding about my movement and several attach to my personal movement, because this model.

    I still dont know what kind of license i have to use for all my blueoxygen projects, because here, we dont have cyberlaw, and the big country like US pushing something to us, and lock the technology and i am believe this country cannot move and make a good market for us here.

    But.. as an enterpreneur, and i think you also, we need to make a little game that may be dangerous, and believing if the product getting cool, there will be forker and there will be a bad guy that want to take, and we must keep going, and believe there is a care people that will help and use, esp in OpenSource market.

    We are using ExtJS as our UI, and we are now also confuse with your license, but we dont care, our project all based on Apache, and there are several LPGL Code like Hibernate, and we try to upgrade to ExtJS 2.1

    Jack,
    I am believe that if you keep moveing, your brand and company brand will grow up, and the rest of the world know that you are the creator.. of course there will be someone that will hijack the idea or fork and make a better product, that happen in Compiere vs OpenBravo vs Adempiere, all 2 are compiere fork.

    with bloging this, i am personally can see that you are care and want to collaborate with your communities, and this will make you can sustain, in Compiere case Jorg Janke never collaborate with community, and close the contribution, that why Adempiere born.

    Frans Thamura
    April 26th, 2008
    9:49 pm

30. Hello Jack,

    I thing the page http://goit-postal.blogspot.com/2008/04/extjs-when-open-source-kills-community.html brings it to the point for commercial users. The problem may not be to be GPL or any other license, the problem is your community support _and_ the fact that no-one out there really knows what you mean by “commercial license” or something like plugin.development. Please make that clear because your framework is just great, your license policy is not that obvious.

    Best regards, ham.

    Mike Hammer
    April 26th, 2008
    10:24 pm

31. Jack,
    I’ve calmed down some from yesterday and I can respond each of your response here but I don’t see that being productive. So let me try to make this as simple as I can so that you understand where I’m coming from.

    Prior to a few days ago, you fully supported GWT-Ext for around 10 months knowing exactly what it did. I recently said that in light of Ext 2.1 changing to GPL, GWT-Ext will simply stay on Ext 2.0.2. And now you are opposed to what you previously agreed on. There needs to be some consistency.

    Had you objected to GWT-Ext from day 1, I would not have invested the time in building GWT-Ext, and users would not have even known about its existence. But what you’ve done here is changed your position on what you previously agreed on and it cost people a lot of time and investment. We’re not talking about a few hours, but several man years of time invested by the gwt-ext userbase and me. And only now did you feel the need to come on the gwt-ext forums telling users :

    “It’s also worth noting that trying to continue an old version of Ext JS under the LGPL for the sake of GWT-Ext won’t accomplish a whole lot either. Although sanjiv has made public on his site that HE does not consider using GWT-Ext to be creating combined works, that is contrary to the definition in the LGPL.”

    And you say that you feel this was is common business sense? You’ve been telling users that they can’t fork Ext since its not LGPL, yet cite LGPL as the reason you consider GWT-Ext a derivate work. I’m not going to rehash everything thats already been said earlier, but there are just too many data points of inconsistencies.

    I still stand by what I said in my blog (minus the personal attacks which I apologize for).

    This is going to be my only post here as the intent is not to start another argument - just a simple perspective.

    Sanjiv

    Sanjiv Jivan
    April 26th, 2008
    10:25 pm

32. @Sanjiv

    I still think you and Jack would be a lot stronger if you just kissed and made up, and got down to business. Don’t you agree? Releasing your product GPL wouldn’t be horrific, you already charge for the key features people need to be productive with your solution. We are still considering using gwt-ext commercially, but only if it continues to keep up with the official extjs product. Forking hurts your product more than it helps it. Just my 2 cents. Hope its worth something to you.

    Will S
    April 26th, 2008
    11:51 pm

33. Hey “Former EXT JS/ GWT-EXT enthusiast”… GOOD RIDDANCE you cheap piece of ****. Hey Jack… your true users support you 100%. Just like other have written these people are the crying minorities… Look at how much text this idiot (Former EXT JS/ GWT-EXT enthusiast) wrote. Do you have a life? Let me just say it as plain as I can… Former EXT JS/ GWT-EXT enthusiast go **** yourself. Ahhh… I feel so much better. GO JACK GO!!!!! (Oh… I want it for free or I’m going to cry) Let me guess… an Obama supporter? USA! USA! USA!

    Mike
    April 27th, 2008
    12:08 am

34. @sanjiv

    As I said in my initial email to you and in the page above, I would continue to support your project. I had no desire to stop that support and was not trying to create a bad situation for you. I have respect for your work and since you started have only shown that to be the case.

    Once we released 2.1, you posted that you would no longer continue to support Ext JS and would instead move to forked version of 2.0.2. When you stop supporting us and publicly denounce us in your forums, how can I continue to support GWT-Ext? If you change course on us, we have a right to change our minds as well.

    I still have respect for your work and I am still open to talking about the future, even after the events of the past 24 hours. Only not on a blog like some kind of soap opera. The email I sent you that is posted above still hasn’t been replied to. You are welcome to reply to it and we can go from there.

    Jack Slocum
    April 27th, 2008
    12:16 am

35. Jeeez…what the heck is going on with this stuff.

    I have to say as a user, I’ve tried out majority of the ajax toolkits available and ExtJS really does kick some serious a-s-s. It’s just an amazing library and a pleasure to use.

    At the end of the day, all this drama around licensing is killing innovation and scaring users away from adopting ExtJS.

    @Jack, one recommendation to add to your site’s licensing FAQ’s is a laymen terms Q/A, such as:

    1.) I am a freelance developer working on a webapp for a client using ExtJS. How many licenses, if any, need to be purchased? One for me being the developer, how about the client? Can I re-use my developer license to build another webapp for a separate client using ExtJS?

    2.) I am an employee building an intranet app using ExtJS, do I need to purchase a license?

    3.) I would like to slightly modify the behavior of an Ext class, can I override the class for my local app use? I don’t plan to distribute this to others as it’s a very specific change for my app.

    There are many other situations like these which are very confusing.

    All in all, great work and all the best to ExtJS, LLC!

    A User
    April 27th, 2008
    1:31 am

36. My sentiments fall in line with “Former EXT JS/GWT-EXT Ethusiast”. Having started several businesses over the past 12 years, I find this entire situation and this post to be very unprofessionally handled. Your way in dealing with this situation makes me question how you manage your business.

    Changing the license after establishing a userbase becomes a questionable action of ethics and motive, be it for the betterment of the project or not. You will hit resistance and retaliation no matter which way you go. The question, then, comes down to how you deal with the resistance. So far, what you have shown me is mostly unprofessional behavior, no transitional plans for your current users/customers, and no consideration for the consequences of your actions. Here’s why:

    *) As an entrepeneur and former open source software developer, we all go through similar hardships and sacrifices. Quotes like “There weren’t many donations and no official support from Yahoo. With my third child due, and savings running low I had to find a way to continue building what was now changing to Ext JS and also find a way to earn a living from it.” does not really make you any more special than others and has nothing to do with your product and the issue being discussed. Your point is that you would like to make a living out of this project, which is perfectly fine. But please don’t use your life circumstances as an excuse (yes, that’s how I perceive it). Just keep it simple and professional.

    *) So far, my impression of your post is that you seem to focus on how your past justifies your current decisions and how it “proves” your character and personality. It’s all well and good that you need to maintain a reputable image and create a good brand. But honestly, what you are doing now is all at the expense of your customers and users. At the end of the day, this is NOT about you or your quibbles with others; it is about your Customers. For your quibbles, please take it outside of the classroom and fight over it somewhere in a private parking lot at night where customers can’t see. As the saying goes, keep your family affairs IN THE FAMILY. Take that advice, seriously. So far, no matter who wins this battle of the licenses, you’re losing your war.

    *) I agree with others that you really need to think over your licensing model. If you want to stay open source and still make money out of commercial licensing, then make sure that you have fully thought it through. A half-assed job is worse than no job at all. So if you plan to change this licensing model, you should be very sure that this will stick around for a LONG TIME. Changing licenses on every major version release (yes, it’s an overexaggeration) will look bad on you and really annoy your customers.

    Really, I am quite disappointed in how this issue is being handled. Your actions truly show poor business management and bad business decisions. And no, I am not referring to changing your license, but how you’re handling the consequences. At the end of the day, if you want this to be a business, then run it like one! Don’t be mixing your personal issues with your business and vice versa.

    Now, can you please keep your focus on your customers/users and thoroughly think about how you plan to satisfy them/us? Take this quibble into the locker room behind closed doors, do whatever you have to do inside, and figure something out that benefits all your stakeholders and constituents. KEEP IT IN THE FAMILY.

    And while you’re at it, how about coming out with a well thought-out plan on how to (1) meet the demands of your customers, (2) sustain your business, and (3) bridge and ease the transition for existing customers/users?

    Chris Chen
    April 27th, 2008
    1:43 am

37. I have the same questions like “a user”. I am havig no problems with paying for a license. (i did twice). Business is business. But i like a the licensing faq with a good explenation off different cases. For example:
    “I have created a website with the use of extjs. The users of this site have to pay me money for the use off it. I have payed for a single developer license. Because i am a single developer. Is this the way to go, or do i have to pay for every user on my website. I do not distribute or modify extjs in any way.”

    For the rest: i feel same like the first post on this subject (from Steve).

    Bas
    April 27th, 2008
    1:55 am

38. Using your child to justify your new commercial model is now going to help.

    I agree that you can’t have both: open source community and act like a closed-source project.

    I think you already know what you choosed counting how many times you use the “business” word in your post. Actually I’m pretty sad about all this. I don’t know you and all I can comment about is your decisions. When you said “we consulted our customers” (and only them) since this decision wouldn’t affect them It’s pretty obviosly that they wouldn’t be against to. This change affect direct the opensource community so WE should have been counsulted.

    I’ve been learning EXTJS for about 6 months and recreating the admin panel in one site that I’ve as a experience because I was going to use it in others projects(they would need a commercial license… money for your business) that I’m beginng in the next weeks. But know I not so sure.

    Sorry that I can’t support you in your decisions. I think your work is amaizing but I’m felling kicked away.

    Sorry my english too.

    Guilherme
    April 27th, 2008
    3:11 am

39. Hi.

    We are developing a site using extJS (which we are very happy with) for use on our internal intranet (actually it’s a medical application within a hospital, but will only be used by our own clinical staff). We have no intentions of re-distributing as a commercial product. Do we need to purchase a license? If so, then how much?

    cheers…

    david h
    April 27th, 2008
    4:13 am

40. Jack Slocum: Ext JS License change and personal attacks…

    […]Is it fair that some people who don’t know me at all seem to pass judgement on me as if they do? The people who know me know that for me, it’s not about money, but about a passion for doing something that I love. I mean, get real, if it was ab…

    Web 2.0 Announcer
    April 27th, 2008
    4:44 am

41. Guillherme,

    I would not agree that customer of the commercial licence are not affected. One of the benefits of customers when paying for commercial licences of open source software is that they get support and support the development of the tool they use. This is important to assure that the tool the build upon has a future. But they do so without sacrificing freedom and the right to get away from the provider of that open source tool.

    With the change to GPL, customer don’t have that freedom anymore. Not only many conditions make it now mandatory to buy the commercial licence (redistributors packaging it with close source stuff) but now there is no chance of a competitor of the support services can start in case the initial provider does not behave well versus his customers.

    This is the whole point of open source from the customers point of view:

    - keep you honest

    In exchange for that you:

    - get the benefit of the community

    Ludovic Dubost
    April 27th, 2008
    5:18 am

42. Forgive my lack of understanding but it is very a complex story. To make this long story short, can I sum it up like this ?

    1) you started an open source project
    2) it got successfull
    3) you want to make money out of it (you have got kids after all !) so you change the license.
    4) people complain about it

    Well, i can understand everybody’s point. Fortunatly not all open source developpers have kids…

    thogau
    April 27th, 2008
    5:39 am

43. “Is it fair…”

    Quote from Marcus character on TV show Babylon 5:

    I used to think that it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn’t it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe.

    anonymous
    April 27th, 2008
    7:19 am

44. ExtJs could have done well financially without changing the license to GPL. The more users you had the more support/training contracts you would have got for your company.

    My company would have paid more for books/trainings then for the licenses you ask. We prefer using business friendly licensed open source projects because they tend to have a bigger user base and it’s much easier to hire people that have experience with them. So we’ll just get rid of extjs if you keep it GPL licenced.

    Andrian
    April 27th, 2008
    8:24 am

45. @Andrew: You said:

    “Moreover: I came across this blog post which criticizes your decision to move to the GPL and expresses many of the same views as Sanjiv did. It borders on tinfoil-hat paranoia to suggest that starting with the LGPL and later moving to the GPL was a _calculated move_ on your part, one designed to attract a large development community and then “trick” them into buying commercial licenses.”

    I am the author of that blog post. Although I see how you could reach the conclusion that I was suggesting this was all planned from the start, I am not that cynical. If you read my own comment on my blog post, in fact, you will see that I explicit said I don’t think it was planned from the beginning. However, that doesn’t invalidate any of the arguments I make in that post. The fact is that Ext has benefited from the LGPL, which they knew at the time they made the switch to GPL. You also said:

    “But for many of the concerns raised, an explicit endorsement of a 2.0.2 fork would be the perfect refutation. It’d demonstrate without doubt that moving to the GPL was not a money-grabbing move.”

    This I completely agree with. However Jack is clearly against any fork as can be seen in many comments. In short, despite appearing to be LGPL and gaining the benefits this brought, Ext never wanted to actually be LGPL.

    @Jack

    You have provided a lot of reasons why the change makes sense from your perspective as the creator of a great framework and a principle in a business. From this perspective it all seems to make sense, and most people (myself included) don’t take issue with you wanting to make a profit from your work.

    However, despite following this issue closely in many online discussions, I have not once seen you address the main concerns I raised in my post. You must realise that a huge number of people have been attracted to Ext because it appeared to be LGPL, and your project has derived huge benefits from this. If you never wanted to be LGPL, then unfortunately you made a mistake - but is it right to make the community pay for this? Is it right to take the benefits of a liberal license and then suddenly cut off a large part of the community that brought the benefits? Without even a warning or any sign of a plan to help these users make a transition? To me this shows no consideration for those people whose participation has helped make Ext what it is today. When you invoke Quid-Pro-Quo in your arguments I wonder if you think of these people who have given to your project and are now left high and dry?

    The other big flaw in your reasoning, IMO, is that using the LGPL would cost your business a lot of money. Taking a short term view this may be true, but over the long term crippling the community will have a large negative effect. Remember that you are competing with a bunch of libraries the majority of which have commercial-friendly OS licenses. Permissive licenses are used in such libraries with good reason - openness and community are very powerful for this level of infrastructure. Despite the impressive state of ExtJS at present, I think it will be hard for you to maintain a technology lead with a smaller community. I wish you the best, but wonder how well this has been considered in the long term view.

    For my own part, we started using Ext in the early days as an extension to YUI which we were already using. We watched Ext grow and were very impressed, and the next version of our product will rely on it heavliy. We were intending to buy licenses when this new version goes live, despite not being compelled to with the version of ExtJS we are using. We also planned to release some of our internal extensions to the community (we need to upgrade them to ExtJS 2 first). In the interest of fairness we will still purchase the licenses we had intended to, they are easily worth the money. However, I doubt we will expend the extra effort to release our extensions given the new license terms. I also will not consider using ExtJS in a future project as I have no trust in Ext to not make further major changes at the cost of the community and existing customers.

    Jason Sankey
    April 27th, 2008
    11:13 am

46. For everyone commenting that we “could have done well financially without switching to the GPL”.

    I think you are missing the point. This has nothing to do with money, we are doing fine financially. It had to do with cleaning up what had until 2.1 been a hodge-podge of licenses that came out of necessity into a clean simple licensing structure that is aligned with what we expected all along.

    For everyone commenting on me mentioning my kids…

    That’s just me. I am always talking about my kids. It’s hard not to, http://youtube.com/jackslocum .

    Jack Slocum
    April 27th, 2008
    11:54 am

47. So let’s sum up quickly my understanding of the EXT 2.0 licensing and I hope that I’m getting this right, cuz it’s obviously very confusing.

    *) EXT 2.0 Javascript code is licensed under LGPL and can be redistributed as stated under the licensing terms.
    *) EXT 2.0 Assets is NOT licensed under LGPL and cannot be redistributed as stated under its own licensing terms.
    *) EXT 2.0 Javascript AND Assets are distributed TOGETHER as a single distribution.
    *) EXT 2.0 Assets CAN NOT be redistributed unless it’s distributed with EXT 2.0 Javascript itself.
    *) So essentially, EXT 2.0 Javascript can live without the Assets, but Assets cannot live without EXT.

    So what you’re essentially saying is that EXT 2.0 can be forked and redistributed under LGPL as long as it doesn’t include the assets. These images can be created by others (for example, an “open-sourced” theme). Am I right in interpreting what you have said so far?

    Chris Chen
    April 27th, 2008
    1:22 pm

48. Great decision Jack!
    Maybe you are interested in joining Micro$oft? We can make some money then together.

    Crap Jack, what a crappy decision.

    Bill Gates
    April 27th, 2008
    3:26 pm

49. […] mert úgy érzem, hogy a “termék” megérdemli. Kár, hogy ezt éppen a termék atyja, Jack nem így […]

    theba.hu » Blog Archive » ExtJS és az (L)GPL
    April 27th, 2008
    4:26 pm

50. […] Slocum, the lead developer and founder of ExtJS, responded to all the criticism on his blog. Jack complains, “Shortly before 1.0 is released, there numerous Ext “clones” started […]

    Juixe TechKnow » How To Kill A Community
    April 27th, 2008
    4:47 pm

51. About three weeks ago one of my programmers downloaded Ext JS to evaluate it as a replacement for ASP.NET with AJAX. I had not heard of it before then. It wasn’t until last weekend I found time to get into it to see if it would work for us. By Monday we had decided to give it a shot and spent this past week essentially replacing all we had done in ASP.NET over the past six months with an Ext JS solution with better functionality. Today, as I write this, ASP.NET is officially gone (our back end that services the Json requests continues to use .NET/C#). And it only took a week.

    As far as licensing goes, it wasn’t until the middle of the week I looked at the website to see what the cost of the product would be. I assumed there would be a cost, since generally the best of things aren’t given away for free.

    To me, the cost of a framework is a non-issue. Frameworks, tools, controls, hardware, etc., are all so insignificant to the cost of a great programmer that priority number one becomes finding the right tools and hardware to reduce the amount of time a programmer spends doing something. It’s programmer time that costs the money, folks. Anyone who’s done a startup, run a business, etc., knows this.

    Ext JS has already been a huge productivity win for us. We have no problem paying for whatever license we need. It’s worth the money. The cost is teeny tiny compared to the cost of programmers.

    Some here seem to believe the quality of the product will suffer because of the new licensing. I would suggest that it won’t, simply because the innovation of products is usually driven by one or two individuals (usually the technology founders of a company) and not by a community.

    Usually it is the community that hangs on to the coat-tails of the innovator, not the other way around. Then when the innovator decides to “clean things up,” to make things “clearer” and “more understandable,” those hanging on throw a fit. “Surely the product only exists because of us,” they say. When in reality the innovator could have created the same product regardless.

    I often wonder why those who hang on to the coat-tails of the innovator never thank him for the fun ride…

    -Corey

    Corey
    April 27th, 2008
    5:00 pm

52. […] Jack Slocum’s Blog - » Ext JS License change and personal attacks - It’s not right the amount of personal attacks I have been receiving lately. I have people questioning my ethics, business practices and saying we changed Ext JS to GPL v3 because my (and I quote) “greed for money came before your moral ethics”. […]

    Daily del.icio.us for April 26th through April 27th — Vinny Carpenter’s blog
    April 27th, 2008
    7:30 pm

53. Jack… These people are full of BS when they say they will stop using ExtJS and switch over to another product. I give them a day before they say… crap I miss ExtJS… what was I thinking. IGNORE THEM and get back to working full time on the best Javascript framework out there!!!

    Mike
    April 27th, 2008
    9:17 pm

54. After reading all of this. I never once saw any info on how you took the BSD code from Yahoo and are now giving no credit back to them and their code you now have relicensed in your product. Yet you seem to debate the use of your license and how people have taken your code and reused it in their products.

    Some how I feel Yahoo got cheated by you…

    Ted
    April 27th, 2008
    9:22 pm

55. @Corey: Perfect Post.

    Jack,

    Don’t sweat the small stuff. ExtJS Rocks!!!

    Asad
    April 27th, 2008
    11:10 pm

56. I have not been using Ext for some time now but have been following the developments…. I always used to be excited to know whats new this time, Jack must have had another surprise in this release….. Ext is very close to my heart, I always used to recommend this library to anyone and everyone I met…. because I was aware of the dedication and commitment of Jack….. I knew how much effort he put into it….. I experienced his helping hand when people (including myself) were stuck somewhere and suddenly Jack used to pop up with the solution….

    It has been a wonderful journey from YUI-ext to ExtJS…. and though not able to contribute much with code, I have contributed in my own small ways… due to pure respect for Jack and this library….

    Its really unfortunate to see how people are keen on gaining publicity by dragging people into such useless debate instead of working together and taking this library to the next level…. I think you should have patience Jack and don’t let this nonsense go to ur head, coz with popularity such crap comes along…. and it will keep coming…. you have my vote Jack, all of us support you

    Manu Goel
    April 27th, 2008
    11:54 pm

57. […] a GNU GPL v3. (Veja também: Licensing Overview; Licence change; GWT-Ext Forum; Sanjiv Jivan blog; Jack Slocum blog; […]

    Blog do Márcio d’Ávila » Liberdade com direitos e deveres
    April 28th, 2008
    12:19 am

58. It’s amazing that the group who put together the very nice JavaScript Ext library would destroy all their hardwork and community good will with such a sleezy, clandestine move from LGPL to GPL to force developers to use Ext’s commercial license.

    In my opinion, if Jack Slocum doesn’t revert Ext’s license back to LGPL (with no self-serving illegal interpretations) within the next month, then Ext will become extinct and OpenExt will take it’s place. Furthermore, the near universal disdain and disrespect of Jack Slocum for his relicensing dishonesty will dog him for the rest of his (hopefully) short career.

    devdanke
    April 28th, 2008
    1:13 am

59. “[…] have a problem they should man up and buy a commercial license.”

    Not sure why should I buy a commercial license for my open source project which I do for free in my spare time? If ExtJS would have been GPL from the start, we for sure would not have touched it.

    Peace
    -stephan

    Stephan Schmidt
    April 28th, 2008
    1:35 am

60. What a shame, trick people into using a product with a relaxed license and then change the license. I doubt people will trust you in the future.

    Chris
    April 28th, 2008
    2:36 am

61. Despite the comments from those old-fashioned stick in the muds, good on you for talking about the personal side of things and mentioning your third child. What are you all looking for? A corporate grade proprietry (and completely non-personal) solution - but that you don’t have to pay for??? It seems Jack is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
    This switch in licensing whilst possibly a pain for those who have started working on projects under certain expectations that are no longer satisfied is what needed to be done with all the OSS evangelist bitching thats been going on. I love OSS, but the people who are complaining about the changes aren’t the real OS crowd - they are the crowd hoping to use the EXT crews work to make money without supporting it (as has repeatedly been the case in the past). True OSS loyalists will love GPL as it encourages other OSS projects - and those worried about incompatiblities with other OSS licenses GPLv3 takes care of this. The only people stressing about the license changes are those who don’t want to support the project - but also don’t want to give others the same flexibilities with their own projects.
    The “vibe” of the licenses that apply to EXT (as has always been) is that people using EXT to make money should contribute to those who develop it - the problem is licensing for this is incredibly difficult without loopholes that are taken advantage of by third parties. Jack tried this by providing a commercial and a “similar to LGPL” alternative - but this also had the OS affectionardos up in arms as well (and what a shit-storm the blogs blew up over that one). So now the EXT crew have tried to uncomplicate it further and you’re all bitching now that your previous miss-informed loopholes for this “Quid Pro Quo” have been patched up and made clear.

    The ONLY dishonest people in this whole debacle are those who are adverse to applying GPL to thier own projects (or compatible open source software) in the first place. Want to use OSS? Make your own software also OS! Want to turn a profit? Support the team that helps you turn that profit.

    And all of those people confused legally about the LGPL “modifications” of the previous licenses? EXTJS was not licensed under the LGPL (although it was obviously confusing for many of you to work that out as you jumped to conclusions as soon as you saw those four letters lined up). It was a license ’similar’ to lgpl with some restrictions - no different to copying and pasting the lgpl and altering it to use for your own project. Irrelevant to your opinions on how IP law should work - an author has complete control over how to license their work so long as the license terms are defined at the time the work is distributed. Just because a license is based on LGPL does not make it in any way have to conform to any of the LGPL stipulations - so long as the work isn’t initially licensed as the former.

    Frankly the EXTJS community is better off without all of you leeches. Jack has made a fantastic concession by allowing the package to be licensed under GPL so that anyone working on open source projects can use it for free; but those of you who are negatively affected by the change aren’t actually working on open source - you have your fingers crossed that it will make you money. Why else are you trying to keep your code closed source? Are you embarrased by how terrible a coder you are? No - its because you’re hoping that your secrets and ideas will help you turn a buck, and yet you begrudge Jack for expecting those who do make a profit to compensate him and the team for their work.

    Maybe there is a small edge case group who are negatively affected and don’t fit into the “vibe” of EXT’s licenses as Jack is trying to protect - but he is already working on a FLOSS exception to try cater for the ones he has identified; and for anybody else legitimately affected by this (who aren’t leeches) try emailing - I am sure that if your particular case doesn’t fit into the guidelines he is trying to address with the license change then something can be worked out.

    PrecariousPanther
    April 28th, 2008
    2:57 am

62. The main issue for me to use this Framework, is the kind of instability of its License and developer. It has been changing a lot during months. Now again a big change. What will be the next step?
    You plan to take a commercial license, then next year the price may be double, multiplied by 3 or 10, etc

    I will not TRUST at all EXT-JS.

    K. Pejip
    April 28th, 2008
    8:21 am

63. Ext user since 0.3x.

    Mr Jack, those who criticize are most likely idealistic zealots, unfamiliar with you and Ext.

    ExtJS has changed web-development for thousands of people.

    Chris Scott
    April 28th, 2008
    9:53 am

64. Jack, I don’t mean this as an attack, but as I’m reading this post, I’m thinking… are you serious?

    “Is it fair that some people who don’t know me at all seem to pass judgement (sic) on me as if they do?”

    “Neither one of [the major publicly traded companies] even contacted us. How can that be possible? Can they do that? How can we compete with them taking such a large chunk of our potential customers?”

    Jack: Let me ask you a simple question… If someone took the entire Apache source-code, added a few new features, then re-packaged it as the new best HTTP Server out there, what do you think Apache would do? Would they threaten law suits? Maybe. But they would probably go make the OFFICIAL Apache HTTP Server even better with MORE new features.

    What product do you think people would go with?

    China duplicates the interface of the iPhone, and sells mimiced copies. What does Apple do? Go post a blog telling the world how unfair it is that China is copying their hard-work? Hell no! They go release an even BETTER product, with MORE features that users want.

    Welcome to the world of business my friend. Being a game designer for a large corporation in the past (Electronic Arts, 3b/year), I can tell you first-hand about competition. EA doesn’t roll over every time a “Sim-like” game comes out. They go and make a better version themselves, like SPORE.

    You underestimate the loyalty of your community Jack. Did those big publicly traded companies release a version 2.0 of their product that could compare with ExtJS? I highly doubt it! And from a consumers point of view, why would a development company choose to go w/ the “competition” of the original creators of the framework?

    It’s silly to assume so…

    Noah
    April 28th, 2008
    10:27 am

65. @Mike from a few posts above:

    Sometimes it is not the developers decision. I work for a company now called The Rubicon Group (privately held). The VP of Software Development is a huge open-source fan. He chose not to go with Adobe Flex/Air because of the licensing cost.

    Anyhoo, the point I’m trying to say is that he is likely to decide later this week to go with a different framework for our next big project. I like ExtJS. I don’t mind paying the 1 developer fee. Whatever. It’s not my decision… which sucks, because who knows what sort of ripple effect this may have in our industry.

    Noah
    April 28th, 2008
    10:55 am

66. Jack,

    I just recently completed a 35-page analysis of the various options available for doing RIAs, including Ext, Dojo, Flex, GWT, and others. Ext won handily (we’ll be buying a diamond license and support here Real Soon Now, I’m told). The only thing it’s missing right now from an enterprise standpoint is charting/graphing functionality.

    Business users use Ext not because it’s free, or because of the license. They use it for the amazing functionality and consistency it brings. While a thriving open source community is great, as business users we’re more concerned about what you’re supporting directly, and what comes with the toolkit itself, than we are with 3rd party open source contributions. The staggering amount of productivity we’re gaining buying Ext as opposed to spending man-years of development writing our own is well worth the paltry price of the license.

    Why some people are complaining about your use of the *GPL* of all things is *beyond* me — it’s more friendly to open source than is the LGPL. It’s a perfect win for you: GPL for people who want/need to use it for free, charge for support or a commercial license for people with other needs or aims. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with using the GPL to make sure both groups get what they need. The only people that will be disappointed are those who wanted to use your code in their own framework products for free, and quite frankly that shouldn’t be your concern. If they’re planning on making money by incorporating your code, then you should get a piece of that.

    Regards,
    -scott

    Scott A
    April 28th, 2008
    11:57 am

67. buy a development license, people. it’s a perfectly reasonable price at USD289 — especially if you’ve got euros — for what you get. I’m a contract web-app developer. I just tell my client

    “hey, all that sweet UI stuff I’m giving you…you need to spend $289 on a license.

    client: “yea, sure. where do I go?”

    chris: http://www.extjs.com/store/extjs/

    +—————————————————
    | Developer License
    +—————————————————
    Allows for a single developer to install and use Ext JS on unlimited workstations for development and to deploy Ext JS on unlimited domains and sub-domains on unlimited servers. [View Full License]
    Commercial License (including full source code) $289 [Buy Now]
    Commercial License + Silver Support (15% Savings) $588 $539 [Buy Now]
    +—————————————————

    and if you work for a company with deeper pockets and your budget is bigger, spend a bit more and get yourself some better support services.

    when I find myself with more $, I’m definitely getting myself a Commercial License, so I can get access to the “Premium Forums”. I miss the days when Jack would actively respond to anyone on the free forums, sometimes in realtime at 4am!

    frameworks like ExtJS with its component-based architecture are here to stay, Ext just happens to be best of the best today.

    Allows for a single developer to install and use Ext JS on unlimited workstations for development and to deploy Ext JS on unlimited domains and sub-domains on unlimited servers. [View Full License]
    Commercial License (including full source code) $289 [Buy Now]
    Commercial License + Silver Support (15% Savings) $588 $539 [Buy Now]
    +—————————————————

    and if you work for a company with deeper pockets and your budget is bigger, spend a bit more and get yourself some better support services.

    when I find myself with more $, I’m definitely getting myself a Commercial License, so I can get access to the “Premium Forums”. I miss the days when Jack would actively respond to anyone on the free forums, sometimes in realtime at 4am!

    frameworks like ExtJS with its component-based architecture are here to stay

    Allows for a single developer to install and use Ext JS on unlimited workstations for development and to deploy Ext JS on unlimited domains and sub-domains on unlimited servers. [View Full License]
    Commercial License (including full source code) $289 [Buy Now]
    Commercial License + Silver Support (15% Savings) $588 $539 [Buy Now]
    +—————————————————

    and if you work for a company with deeper pockets and your budget is bigger, spend a bit more and get yourself some better support services.

    when I find myself with more $, I’m definitely getting myself a Commercial License, so I can get access to the “Premium Forums”. I miss the days when Jack would actively respond to anyone on the free forums, sometimes in realtime at 4am!

    frameworks like ExtJS with its component-based architecture are here to stay.

    lets all just pony up and keep Jack happy and free to shine his light.

    he’s like a rockstar — let him make music for us.

    +—————————————————
    | Developer License
    +—————————————————
    Allows for a single developer to install and use Ext JS on unlimited workstations for development and to deploy Ext JS on unlimited domains and sub-domains on unlimited servers. [View Full License]
    Commercial License (including full source code) $289 [Buy Now]
    Commercial License + Silver Support (15% Savings) $588 $539 [Buy Now]
    +—————————————————

    and if you work for a company with deeper pockets and your budget is bigger, spend a bit more and get yourself some better support services.

    when I find myself with more $, I’m definitely getting myself a Commercial License, so I can get access to the “Premium Forums”. I miss the days when Jack would actively respond to anyone on the free forums, sometimes in realtime at 4am!

    frameworks like ExtJS with its component-based architecture are here to stay, Ext just happens to be best of the best today.

    Allows for a single developer to install and use Ext JS on unlimited workstations for development and to deploy Ext JS on unlimited domains and sub-domains on unlimited servers. [View Full License]
    Commercial License (including full source code) $289 [Buy Now]
    Commercial License + Silver Support (15% Savings) $588 $539 [Buy Now]
    +—————————————————

    and if you work for a company with deeper pockets and your budget is bigger, spend a bit more and get yourself some better support services.

    when I find myself with more $, I’m definitely getting myself a Commercial License, so I can get access to the “Premium Forums”. I miss the days when Jack would actively respond to anyone on the free forums, sometimes in realtime at 4am!

    frameworks like ExtJS with its component-based architecture are here to stay

    Allows for a single developer to install and use Ext JS on unlimited workstations for development and to deploy Ext JS on unlimited domains and sub-domains on unlimited servers. [View Full License]
    Commercial License (including full source code) $289 [Buy Now]
    Commercial License + Silver Support (15% Savings) $588 $539 [Buy Now]
    +—————————————————

    and if you work for a company with deeper pockets and your budget is bigger, spend a bit more and get yourself some better support services.

    when I find myself with more $, I’m definitely getting myself a Commercial License, so I can get access to the “Premium Forums”. I miss the days when Jack would actively respond to anyone on the free forums, sometimes in realtime at 4am!

    frameworks like ExtJS with its component-based architecture are here to stay.

    lets all just pony up and keep Jack happy and free to shine his light.

    +—————————————————
    | Developer License
    +—————————————————
    Allows for a single developer to install and use Ext JS on unlimited workstations for development and to deploy Ext JS on unlimited domains and sub-domains on unlimited servers. [View Full License]
    Commercial License (including full source code) $289 [Buy Now]
    Commercial License + Silver Support (15% Savings) $588 $539 [Buy Now]
    +—————————————————

    and if you work for a company with deeper pockets and your budget is bigger, spend a bit more and get yourself some better support services.

    when I find myself with more $, I’m definitely getting myself a Commercial License, so I can get access to the “Premium Forums”. I miss the days when Jack would actively respond to anyone on the free forums, sometimes in realtime at 4am!

    frameworks like ExtJS with its component-based architecture are here to stay, Ext just happens to be best of the best today.

    Allows for a single developer to install and use Ext JS on unlimited workstations for development and to deploy Ext JS on unlimited domains and sub-domains on unlimited servers. [View Full License]
    Commercial License (including full source code) $289 [Buy Now]
    Commercial License + Silver Support (15% Savings) $588 $539 [Buy Now]
    +—————————————————

    and if you work for a company with deeper pockets and your budget is bigger, spend a bit more and get yourself some better support services.

    when I find myself with more $, I’m definitely getting myself a Commercial License, so I can get access to the “Premium Forums”. I miss the days when Jack would actively respond to anyone on the free forums, sometimes in realtime at 4am!

    frameworks like ExtJS with its component-based architecture are here to stay

    Allows for a single developer to install and use Ext JS on unlimited workstations for development and to deploy Ext JS on unlimited domains and sub-domains on unlimited servers. [View Full License]
    Commercial License (including full source code) $289 [Buy Now]
    Commercial License + Silver Support (15% Savings) $588 $539 [Buy Now]
    +—————————————————

    and if you work for a company with deeper pockets and your budget is bigger, spend a bit more and get yourself some better support services.

    when I find myself with more $, I’m definitely getting myself a Commercial License, so I can get access to the “Premium Forums”. I miss the days when Jack would actively respond to anyone on the free forums, sometimes in realtime at 4am!

    frameworks like ExtJS with its component-based architecture are here to stay.

    let’s all just pony up as much as we can to keep Jack happy and free to write music for us.

    and if you’re making some revolutionary server-side wrapper framework in java or php or ruby — as I once did but gave up on due to the radical changes from Ext-1.1 -> Ext-2.0 (www.extonrails.com) — then talk to the people at Ext about how best to license your product.

    Chris Scott
    April 28th, 2008
    8:23 pm

68. ** sorry for that last comment — that captca is difficult man **

    buy a development license, people. it’s a perfectly reasonable price at USD289 — especially if you’ve got euros — for what you get. I’m a contract web-app developer. I just tell my client

    “hey, all that sweet UI stuff I’m giving you…you need to spend $289 on a license.

    client: “yea, sure. where do I go?”

    chris: http://www.extjs.com/store/extjs/

    +—————————————————
    | Developer License
    +—————————————————
    Allows for a single developer to install and use Ext JS on unlimited workstations for development and to deploy Ext JS on unlimited domains and sub-domains on unlimited servers. [View Full License]
    Commercial License (including full source code) $289 [Buy Now]
    Commercial License + Silver Support (15% Savings) $588 $539 [Buy Now]
    +—————————————————

    and if you work for a company with deeper pockets and your budget is bigger, spend a bit more and get yourself some better support services.

    when I find myself with more $, I’m definitely getting myself a Commercial License, so I can get access to the “Premium Forums”. I miss the days when Jack would actively respond to anyone on the free forums, sometimes in realtime at 4am!

    frameworks like ExtJS with its component-based architecture are here to stay — it just happens to be the best one today.

    let’s all just pony up as much as we can to keep Jack happy and free to write music for us.

    and if you’re making some revolutionary server-side wrapper framework in java or php or ruby — as I once did but gave up on due to the radical changes from Ext-1.1 -> Ext-2.0 (www.extonrails.com) — then talk to the people at Ext about how best to license your product.

    Chris Scott
    April 28th, 2008
    8:31 pm

69. @K. Pejip & everybody else whining about licensing costs changing in the future:

    Guys, the licensing has NOT significantly changed - it has just been more clearly stated than it was before. Yes it now means you can’t use the ‘free’ version in your ‘proprietry’ application - but this was how the license of previous versions was supposed to read. The reason it feels like such as significant change is because many of you (understandably) did not understand the previous licensing conditions correctly; simply assuming that seeing those four letters (LGPL) means you don’t have to take note of the rest of the conditions.

    Secondly, licenses can’t be retroactively removed without a breach of the original license terms. If you purchase a commercial license for the 2.0 branch and abide by its terms; any future price changes do not apply to you unless you purchase new licenses. Likewise with the 3.0 branch and so on and so forth. IF (as ALWAYS happens) Ext decides to increase the cost of a commercial license for future versions it is completely within their rights (both legally and morally) to do so - as do most companies not only due to inflation but the additonal value that has been added to the product.

    The license changes (beyond the user extension concerns which are being addressed) do not affect commercial license holders. It is not a symbolism of the EXTJS crew being cavalier about changing licenses at a whim - they have simply clarified the OSS license intentions due to the majority of you not understanding them.

    precariousPanther
    April 28th, 2008
    9:23 pm

70. That’s such a shame. You set a lot of people up, Jack. Putting aside all the motives, the way you did that is very unprofessional. Very poor work ethics. You really just used all the people contributing to your project.

    Vlad
    April 28th, 2008
    9:30 pm

71. Jack Slocum is certainly a kind of artist, but if he were a musician, he’d have every right morally or ethically to expect compensation for the sonatas he’s created that the horde now moving to emulate and copy into their own radio-hits.

    You can’t compare ExtJS to other libraries like Prototype or Mootools or JQuery — those libraries play the role of instruments — Ext is music.

    Chris Scott
    April 28th, 2008
    10:27 pm

72. Jack, you say the change to GPL was meant to clean up the licence confusion. Why not then clean up the licence and keep it LGPL? I for one don’t blame Sanjiv for his public blog post. Changing the licence from a open source friendly licence to a commercial oriented licence hurts everyone and is the cause of all these attacks. You’ve hurt alot of people with your stance on all this, trying to validate your decisions. Not good Jack. Not good at all. If you talk to the community, I’m sure most of them would prefer a LPGL licenence for Ext. Change it back and I’m sure this will all blow over. Keep it GPL and you’ll lose alot of users and respect in the community.

    Joe Bloggs
    April 29th, 2008
    5:28 am

73. @Joe Bloggs,

    Can you please explain to me exactly how the GPL is “commercial oriented* and *not* “open source friendly”?

    This should be good.

    -scott

    Scott A
    April 29th, 2008
    10:33 am

74. […] Ext JS License change and personal attacks 要變成 GPL? […]

    20080430 網摘 - 傳媒屈機一百萬 - 網絡暴民 Jacky’s Blog
    April 29th, 2008
    12:34 pm

75. We (that is, the corporation I work for) are paying customers of Ext, we just want a good product..

    And damn it is, it’s just incredible good.. We love Ext, we like to support it by paying, it spices our apps up!

    We don’t care about this license mess, we just want a good product as we depend on it..

    @ Jack: What you and your helpers created is sensational. Don’t let it be minimised by anyone Which license the stuff uses doesn’t have to do anything with the excellence of the work you did..

    Jonas Hiller
    April 30th, 2008
    4:09 am

76. […] debate. We had GWT-Ext’s Sanjiv Jivan weigh in, followed by Ext JS creator Jack Slocum’s heated response. While the whole soap opera is somewhat fascinating, I’m more interested in how these new […]

    Ext GWT, GWT-Ext. What now? | GWT Site
    April 30th, 2008
    12:01 pm

77. The EXT was a good game for me, but as the rules of the game had moved, I lost time and money and the game was flat. I stopped to play.

    Good Luck
    Jeff

    Jeff
    April 30th, 2008
    12:28 pm

78. Jack,

    as you may already know 20% of people have negative attitude to anything productive, they tend to criticize, incriminate, suppress or any other way try to stop any productive activities, groups or people and spoil our lives.

    Fortunately, there are remaining 80% that work, produce, fight for good for everybody, create good things and try to make lives of all us better.

    Just ignore those 20%, they will always be around, and support those 80% by giving them and yourself good and stable licensing environment they can work in, give them good answers that won’t leave them in uncertainties and we all win.

    Because eventually always truth wins.

    I will always support you as you have always been at the top of those 80% in my eyes.

    Saki

    Jozef Sakalos
    April 30th, 2008
    4:59 pm

79. Jack,

    Ext came at a great time where there were few enterprise level frameworks. Watching your developments from YUI-ext .32 to present has been amazing. It’s a shame that this e-drama has gone as far as it did Licensing concerns are one thing, but some comments (especially on the forums) have gone way too far in bashing Ext as a whole.

    I imagine your frustration, but stay strong. There are lots of devoted developers who stand behind Ext 110%.

    At the end of the day, it is you (and your team + community) who made Ext as big of a success as it is. Who else here can say that they created a market from their product? The amount of enterprise level development that uses Ext is absolutely phenomenal! If you want details from my perspective, contact me

    Best wishes,
    Jay

    Jay Garcia
    April 30th, 2008
    7:17 pm

80. In the gwt-ext / extjs issue, I do not understand why Jack has a problem with gwt-ext being LGPL…

    The way I see it is like this:

    you guys are like manufacturers, let’s say E (ExtJs) and G(gwt-ext). E has product and G produces the gloves to handle the product produced by E. These gloves make E’s product handling much easier. G decides to give the gloves for free. Why would E care? He should be happy. It means that clients would be even more enticed to buy his product

    I don’t have a problem ExtJs changing the license - as long as this is clear stated and it eliminates any confusion. I know Qt has a dual license, GPL and commercial.

    I like both products. I hate programming in JavaScript and Gwt-ext was great at isolating me from all that mess so its importance it is not to be underestimated.

    And I hate to see you guys spending so much negative energy in all this.

    This discussion reminds me a bit about ssh and openssh

    I really hope that you guys sort this amiably.

    Costa Basil
    May 1st, 2008
    2:58 am

81. […] been a target of personal attacks because of this license change. He attempts to defend himself on his blog. However, it’s easy to see why people are upset, and I can’t believe he didn’t […]

    Bait-and-Switch and Software Licenses at Discord&Rhyme
    May 1st, 2008
    9:41 am

82. As an employee of a company that have been playing with and thinking about using Ext (v2.x) in a considerable way - after using Ext v1 in the past, I don’t believe that the cost for a license and / or support will be an issue - for all the reasons Corey mentions and more.

    I also agree whole-heartedly with A User and Bas, a license FAQ including typical use cases and what licenses they require is something that would be extremely useful and is something not enough vendors provide.

    Jon S
    May 2nd, 2008
    4:36 am

83. Reputable Home Based Businesses…

    All that is not eternal is eternally out of date. ~ C. S. Lewis…

    Reputable Home Based Businesses
    May 5th, 2008
    5:43 pm

84. Hi Jack,

    Thank you for sharing Ext with us. It’s truly a brilliant body of work.

    Phil

    Philip Weaver
    May 7th, 2008
    3:06 am

85. This is a mess. It’s time to take Yahoo UI and build something better that’s under a BSD license. Anybody interested in spawning a new project? I’m ready to code.

    Jason
    May 7th, 2008
    11:23 pm

86. I think the commercial licence is very reasonably priced. The cost (time/effort) to create a similar work is far more significant.

    However, the “no framework/toolkit” clause in section 4. “Prohibited Uses” of the commercial licence is, I believe too general. I’m sure you are intending to target “user-interface framework/toolkit” to stop people ripping off (your excellent) work and rebranding/etc, but as stated in that clause any product that has an API that allows developers to do things with it could be deemed a “toolkit” and hence contravenes section 4, and requires an OEM licence. Your OEM licensing is in another league altogether.

    JL
    May 8th, 2008
    4:06 am

87. This isn’t about pricing. It’s about the change in licensing. I love how half the people here worship Jack, despite his sudden license changes and introduction of lawyers into a once “open source” project.

    Jared
    May 8th, 2008
    1:43 pm

88. This product used to have a community. Not a community of users who demand support that they have paid for, but a community of developers who maybe did not buy a license but who provided bug reports and fixes on the forums, sent monetary contributions (which I had known that back then, I would not have sent my small contribution of $100 which was not even acknowledged). To be sure, it was a small community but it was growing and the LGPL license fostered its continued growth.
    Now that the license has switched, for whatever reason, ego or pecuniary, this community is disappearing, and the product is once again dependent on the efforts of a what is little more than a one man company. This is too much of a risk to take for me to comfortably use this on a commercial project. What will happen to users of ExtJs, if the company is out of business and nothing works in IE 8 or 9. Those of us who are fluent in JavaScript and submitted bug fixes will make due, but we will be long gone, but what will happen to your typical Enterprise commercial users without a viable community to support the product if Jack ever decides to move on to greener pastures.
    The reason I even bring up the possibility of Jack not always being there is that there has to be reason for the controversial switch in license. I will take Jack at his word that it was not greed. So that leaves one reasonable explanation: the product is not generating enough revenue, and this is a last gasp effort to increase revenue. If this is not the case, and this product is generating enough revenue, then this move risks killing the egg that laid the golden egg. In either case, this is not the ideal situation to invest any significant amount of time it learning this library and building applications that depend on it.

    Tony B
    May 10th, 2008
    2:56 am

89. Anybody looking for an MIT-licensed (free) grid control, check this out:

    http://reconstrukt.com/ingrid/example1.html#

    It’s based on JQuery, a completely free javascript library.

    Jason
    May 10th, 2008
    5:52 pm

90. Jack,

    Your work has made it possible for the far less gifted programmers to submit high quality work. You have probably saved millions of man hours with your innovations in JavaScript.

    When people say “On the shoulders of giants”, I think Jack Slockum.

    No one has the right to question your judgement about how to license your products moving forward. You have already given enough.

    Ellis
    May 15th, 2008
    10:31 am

91. Jack,

    If I was you, I’d be angry. Angry at all the people who cannot spell your damn surname.

    Get some spectacles people! It’s SLOCUM. It’s at the top of the page.

    Keep up the good work.

    Mr Spelly the Spellmeister

    Spellerzzz
    May 15th, 2008
    6:51 pm

92. bedrijfskleding

    bedrijfskleding