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.
Adoption is the first concern of any startup or new business. Not IP protection. Not monetization. Adoption. If no one uses or cares about your product, it just doesn't matter how much money you can scavenge from the lone customer who does. You need lots of adoption.
ExtJS seems to have put the cart before the horse. It is clearly concerned about monetizing every last download. I have news for you, Jack and team: The model you're looking for is called "proprietary software licensing." That's the best way to wring the most dollars from the least amount of interest.
If you're actually interested in building a viable open-source company, however, here's what I would suggest:
- Make the ExtJS framework available under a permissive open-source license like LGPL or, better yet, Apache. This will encourage the most adoption. However, it should also be married to...
- Develop add-on services or software binaries that create more value for the core but are only (initially) available to paid subscribers. This doesn't mean "proprietary," but rather could be accomplished in much the same way that Red Hat delivers value in RHEL.
- Host your software downloads on Sourceforge or another community site. Hosting it yourself is a poor way to maximize awareness of the project.
If you persist in thinking of the ExtJS core as your sole product, you're going to stymie the potential of your business. Open source is about giving away the core and finding ancillary value for which you can charge. In a less open-source context, think Google and advertising.
GPL'ing your core is a good way to protect the core and of monetizing a decent slice of your adoption. But it's better utilized when a project is a bit further along, and it's arguably not a great model for software that will generally have the most value as an embedded component within a larger product, because the GPL immediately makes payment (to buy one's way out of the GPL) or contribution back of one's source code the first decision, rather than adoption.
You really want adoption to be the first decision that a would-be user must make.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
If anything, let the community know about the proposed change in the next major release version. If you let me know 8 months in advance that version 3.0 will be licensed under GPL... then my company can make the proper decision with the knowledge available.
But when you release a new version with serious bug fixes (along w/ a few new features), and change the license all in one fell swoop... it really makes my company want to steer clear of your product.
Which is a shame, since we wanted to use it as the UI for our new product. Oh well... hope Jack and Co. make the $$ they're all hoping for.
My fundamental problem with this license change is indeed mass adoption - not the requirement for me to pay for a license. As a software developer I am very interested in working with tools which allow my skill set to be as portable (adoptable) and in demand as possible. This change from LGPL to GPL doesn't help things. Also, how do you expect them to be able to protect their IP using a pure LGPL - that's precisely what they were trying to protect with the previous Ext LGPL license. Are you suggesting that allowing people to fork their project under LGPL is acceptable? Is this what you mean by "choose"?
- by mattozer May 1, 2008 9:33 PM PDT
- Matt,
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(3 Comments)The change was even more radical than moving to GPL. Exf folks were clearly not even satisfied with GPL.
Initially, they had a phrase (similar to previous LGPL license) in their license to restrict GPL
---
"You may wish to use our open source license if you:
* Want to use Ext in an open source project that is compatible with the GPL
* Plan to use Ext in a personal, educational or non-profit manner"
---
This phase was later removed from the license stating it was a mistake. Then they suggested a much more aggressive interpretation of GPL than commonly used. They interpreted web pages and javascript being sent to the browser as "distribution/conveying" hence required GPL of the server side, making for all intends and purposes any use of the library in a company to require almost all application code or buy a license.
Further, as Ext is a development license and licensed per developer, several new licensing questions have arrived which they did not have the answers for. A consultant can buy a developer license (which gives him unlimited runtime license) and build a solution for a customer. If that customer later has to change the code (fix a bug?) customer would have to buy a license too (since serving a web page with ext in it is considered distribution).
Lots of confusion, not well thought out.. It seems Ext folks think the reactions will blow over and anyone has licensing concerns will buy licenses. ExtJs cannot be used in any commercial entity without acquiring a license (unlike many GPL software) hence for all intends and purposes it should be considered to have a proprietary license as it stands now.