ie8 fix

extjs

Microsoft dumps Sandcastle, does right by open source

When I texted Sam Ramji to let him know about Sandcastle, and he quickly texted back that he would look into it, I figured that a) it hadn't yet hit anyone's radar at Microsoft and b) that he'd fix it.

Fix it, he did. As Mary Jo Foley notes, it was "doubtful [that] Microsoft was willing to risk the wrath of the OSI over a documentation compiler." I'd go one step further. Once alerted to Sandcastle's violation and to the importance thereof, it was doubtful that Microsoft's Sam Ramji and Co. would be interested in the code, however important/non-important it might be.

Sam gets open source. He's not always supported in this understanding by the larger Microsoft entity, but Sam gets it. His apology to the OSI is direct, concise, and appropriate:

This is unacceptable and represents a violation of Microsoft's Open Source policy. I take it extremely seriously.

I have directed the project to be unpublished from Codeplex immediately, including removal of the project's use of the Ms-PL. If the team chooses to publish the source code and follow Microsoft policy, then the project may be re-published in the future. If not, we will remove all references to Sandcastle from Codeplex.… Read more

The ExtJS debacle: What should its licensing strategy be?

ExtJS is a cool JavaScript framework for writing web applications. It is, quite possibly, the best of its kind. My own engineers were salivating at the chance to use it.

Unfortunately, ExtJS is of many minds when it comes to licensing its product. It pretended that the software was LGPL, but only insofar as that meant many people using it...and many people paying to use it. (Hint to the ExtJS business team: LGPL and Apache licenses are impotent to compel payment.)

The company took the hint, re-releasing the code under GPLv3, causing consternation in some quarters. Why the concern? Well, because it meant that freeriders would now clearly have to pay, or distribute their own software under the GPL. Many don't like having to pay for value, particularly if it's GPL'd.

All of which has caused some to fork the ExtJS project. Given the dubious open-source provenance of ExtJS, this is not as easy (or advisable) as it might appear. If ExtJS were never truly LGPL, as the messed-up licensing would seem to suggest, then forking a proprietary product is called...copyright infringement.

It didn't have to be this way.… Read more

ExtJS: When open source is not open at all

I was really excited to hear about ExtJS the other day. It was billed as an open-source JavaScript framework for building web applications. Great! I went to the company's website and learned that it's actually dual-licensed. Even better! Maximum licensing flexibility.

But then I went to the company's licensing page and things got murky really fast. It turns out that the ExtJS won't allow you to use Ext under its LGPL (3.0) license "[i]f 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."

It's a bit like saying, "You can use this as open source so long as you use the software how we'd like you to use it. If you have any money, forget open source: pay us instead."… Read more