MyGWT and GPL3

[Ivan Chappel]

What do you guys think of MyGWT 1.0 going GPL without any notice? Not
a serious user of it but have been following it for a while as it
looked promising.

http://www.extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33334

Darell had mentioned that MyGWT 1.0 would be LGPL on their forums a
few weeks ago but turns to a GPL3 license without notice. And
yesterday he assured users on the forum that MyGWT 0.5 would continue
to be LGPL and maintained on mygwt.net and today the site has gone and
here's what he has to say about it :

http://www.extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33290

Is it just me or does such bait-and-switch worry others? Is there any
form of protection against such a practice when using library X? I
can't imagine GWT doing the same to its users, but then again I didn't
see this coming with MyGWT as well. Before users jump onto this
accusing me of not wanting to pay for software I use professionally,
please note that this is not about the money but more a general
question about ethical software practices.

Think for a moment whether you'd be using GWT itself if it had a GPL /
commercial license to start with. I'm relatively new to GWT compared
to a lot of users here, but I have a feeling that a lot of the
improvements in GWT can be attributed to the thriving community which
might not have been the case had GWT been GPL licensed.

Cheers,
Ivan

[Tim T]

Don't want to make it a surprise for anyone, but Ext LLC is a for
profit company and they live off selling licenses to their stuff (it
seems). Commercial software market is obviously still alive and
kicking (it's insane what my company pays in licenses for some
"enterprise" crap).

I do agree however that Ext's licensing changes are quite messy and
seem to be quite irritating to a lot of their users...

[maku]

From my point of view the intent to make money is understandable with
the huge amount of work e.g. the extjs guys did.

BUT, the point is that the licensing terms has to be thought out once
and should be stable for future.
So the potential user of an open source software is able to check if
the license is o.k. for a distinct kind of application.
Each usage of a library is a huge effort in learning and building the
app infrastructure around the lib (especially in cases of UI
frameworks).

So it is really irritating when licensing is change between
versions... (at least for me)

[David]

Hi,

Indeed, they are entitled to use whatever license they want. But
suddenly changing the license to a more restricted one is just a very
bad idea. Many companies might have invested in it and are now forced
to open their sources to the public.

We had a similar situation in one of our products. A commerical
product was using a license where only a SDK had to be payed and the
runtime was free. Suddenly they changed the license agreement to have
a cost per installation. The price they were asking was higher than
the price of our product. The result was that we could no longer trust
the provider of the library and we decided to stay with the old
version and removed it at a later stage.

There are other ways to make money with opensource. Many companies
would jump on it if they would offer first grade support contracts
(24/7 + patches within a few hours).

David

[Charlie Collins]

I completely agree that the licensing should be transparent and
stable, but in unfortunate cases where the license switches mid-stream
can't you just continue to use the older version with the license it
had. Sure, that's a drag in terms of new features and going forward
(unless you fork it), but it doesn't change what you already have,
what you are already using, in any way.

Looks like a few users on the forum there are considering forking the
LGPL version and creating their own project. Maybe that will get some
momentum.

"Darrell,

So I can just fork the LGPL mygwt 0.5.2 code and continue improving it
as an LGPL project, together with many other developers? You sure did
a wonderful job with mygwt, but the new license for 1.0 would prevent
many from using it. I know http://code.google.com/p/my-gwt/ still
exists, but because of this sudden change, I am not convinced that it
too will not suddenly disappear."

[David]

Charlie,

That would be a temporary solution. But a dangerous one since if we
encounter problems with this version we are stuck. Since the LGP3
license is not acceptable for our company we only have one solution:
remove it from our code. We can not risk using old software that is no
longer maintained or supported.

David

[gregor]

I feel sorry for people who have bought into MyGWT and got caught up
in this sorry tale, but the warning signs were there back in
September. This from Darrell's original post of Sept 11th:


Reinier,

Thanks for the comments. The library is 100% GWT / Java with no 3rd
party javascript. At one point I considered wrapping some libraries,
such as JQuery or Ext, but in the end decided against it. I decided
it was better to have the entire code base in Java which makes things
a lot easier to test, modify, and debug.

Ext JS (formerly yui-ext) is an amazing library. Some of the MyGWT
design and API were influenced by Ext.

Darrell

This library looks useful but I am concerned about license violation.
I took a look at the demos and code and its quite apparent that the
code, css and images are derived work from Ext. Ext is licensed under
LGPL and that prohibits decompiling and re-branding (source and
resources), even if the code is rewritten in another language. Have a
look at the Ext layout and tabs example :
http://extjs.com/playpen/ext-2.0-dev5/examples/layout/complex.html
The Tree widget is also the same.

Can we get some clarification on this?

Regards,
Martin

Martin,

I am currently working with Jack on the licensing of MyGWT as related
to Ext. I will provide more info once the details are worked out.

Thanks,
Darrell

No such clarification appears to have been forthcoming, and now we
know why: Ext JS have changed their license to GPL (NB: it is not
LGPL3, it is GPL3) from LGPL.

My original downloads of MyGWT-0.4.4 & 0.5.0-alpha3 both have the Gnu
Lesser General Public License (LGPL) but it makes no reference to Ext
JS and does not include any Ext JS library files that I can see. There
seems to be some confusion around the forums between the LGPL and the
GPL. Basically the LGPL means that you may use and distribute a
library with a commercial application without practical restrictions
(e,g, JBoss, Tomcat, Ant. log4j etc) whereas the GPL means that you
cannot do so for all practical purposes (in fact it is specifically
designed to stop you doing so). The version number of either is
basically irrelevant. However as Martin pointed out, what you cannot
do with LPGL libraries is to copy the code into your own product and
re-brand it. This appears to be what has happened with Ext JS code in
MyGWT which would be a clear violation of Ext JS intellectual
property.

Martin comments that Ext JS used to be under LGPL. If Darrell had
incuded the Ext JS libraries in the MyGWT releases and acknowledged
them (as is required under LGPL licence terms) then I think a)
existing releases of MyGWT would still be usable in commercial GWT
applications and b) it would be possible to take a branch of MyGWT
forward under LPGL albeit based on an old and immovable version of Ext
JS since that is now under either GPL or commercial paid licence.

However he didn't, and a result I think it likely that any commercial
GWT applications currently using MyGWT components are in breach of Ext
JS copyright. Secondly there is no possibility for taking a branch
from MyGWT for the same reason. I think the only way out of this would
be if in fact Darrell has decided to join forces with Ext JS off his
own bat and not because they have exercised their IP rights. In that
case it may be possible to get clarification and a disclaimer from Ext
JS to enable continued use of existing MyGWT components.

Gregor

On Apr 23, 3:22 pm, David <david.no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Charlie,
>
> That would be a temporary solution. But a dangerous one since if we
> encounter problems with this version we are stuck. Since the LGP3
> license is not acceptable for our company we only have one solution:
> remove it from our code. We can not risk using old software that is no
> longer maintained or supported.
>
> David
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Charlie Collins
>

[Charlie Collins]

Actually, there are a few other options to avoid said danger - you
could buy the commercial license, or support the fork.

I agree this whole situation feels a bit sticky, but it looks like
what happened is MyGWT morphed into Ext GWT and Ext GWT has different
options for licensing, either GPLv3, or commercial. I think they are
offering the commercial version exactly for cases such as yours, where
you are using it at a company, and you want maintenance and support
going forward? (And the GPL version is so people don't cannibalize it
and resell it as their own, but it's still open source and available
to other open source and or non-commercial projects.)

I don't mean to defend them, as I am not familiar enough with the
situation to do so, but it seems reasonable to be able to change the
project later and make it commercial, no? Even if they didn't change
the project name and licensing, they also could have just abandoned
it, and somebody would then also need to take up the torch.

On Apr 23, 10:22 am, David <david.no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Charlie,
>
> That would be a temporary solution. But a dangerous one since if we
> encounter problems with this version we are stuck. Since the LGP3
> license is not acceptable for our company we only have one solution:
> remove it from our code. We can not risk using old software that is no
> longer maintained or supported.
>
> David
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Charlie Collins
>

[gregor]

Hi Charlie,

>
> I don't mean to defend them, as I am not familiar enough with the
> situation to do so, but it seems reasonable to be able to change the
> project later and make it commercial, no?

I don't think it is, in fact I'm not aware of any situation where this
has happened before. If businesses can't rely (or even suspect they
might not be able to) on open source components remaining LGPL they
will not use them, and this will all but destroy the open source
movement as we know it. Ext JS has a gun to the the head of anyone
with significant investment in MyGWT and can in theory charge them
whatever they like. I'm not saying they will, just that they could,
and that's what is so damaging about this affair.

It is, however, perfectly reasonable to offer a free open source GPL
product for personal and non-profit making use, but charge for
commercial use providing you are up front about it to start with. That
is not what has happened here.

regards
gregor

[Ivan Chappel]

Thanks to Google cache I dug this up :

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:8cvqmOtcH6MJ:mygwt.net/forum/viewtopic.php%3Ft%3D1018+mygwt+lgpl+1.0&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

On March 19th Darell wrote :

"MyGWT will continue to be licensed under the LGPL for 1.0. The
project will stay the same. I will still be developing and supporting
the library as I do today."

Cheers,
Ivan

On Apr 22, 6:13 pm, Ivan Chappel <chappel.i...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Ivan Chappel]

gregor, you are spot on and it's precisely how I feel. For all we know
they may abruptly change their license to be per CPU / deployment.
Should we trust them today if they say that they do not plan on doing
so? Well, they said a few weeks ago that MyGWT 1.0 would be LGPL too.

I'm surprised Darell hasn't commented on this.

Cheers,
Ivan

[Charlie Collins]

> I don't think it is, in fact I'm not aware of any situation where this
> has happened before. If businesses can't rely (or even suspect they
> might not be able to) on open source components remaining LGPL they
> will not use them, and this will all but destroy the open source
> movement as we know it.

I respectfully completely disagree. This has happened in many
instances before. When projects merge, or in some way morph into
something new (which MyGWT has, it has turned into GWT Ext) they often
have to reconcile licenses and they pick a new one. At one time I
recall MySQL did something similar, going from LGPL to GPL, OpenOffice
did also, and if I had a better memory, or felt like using the Google,
I could probably name a hundred more (Java itself for another
example). It happens very frequently when projects mature and either
merge with someone else, or they have another good reason to change
the license.

And, I would have to say that it's completely their prerogative to do
it - it's not going to "destroy the open source movement as we know
it."

Don't get me wrong, I think in this case the operators of MyGWT/GWT
Ext seem to have handled this very poorly, miscommunicated, and or
even possibly claimed they would NOT switch the license, which will
(and should) piss people off - but you don't have to use it - and they
don't have to keep the license the same forever - hence the reason I
mentioned the people on the MyGWT list talking about porting it.

On Apr 23, 12:47 pm, gregor <greg.power...@googlemail.com> wrote:

[Thomas]

On Apr 24, 7:43 am, Charlie Collins <charlie.coll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I respectfully completely disagree. This has happened in many
> instances before. When projects merge, or in some way morph into
> something new (which MyGWT has, it has turned into GWT Ext) they often
> have to reconcile licenses and they pick a new one.  At one time I
> recall MySQL did something similar, going from LGPL to GPL, OpenOffice
> did also, and if I had a better memory, or felt like using the Google,

The primary difference is in these cases, applications utilizing the
resources of the code where able to use LGPL interface libraries.
Sure, we use MySQL. Sure, we provide notice that they can get MySQL
for free. And yes, we pay for support when we have a dire emergency
which requires a phone call.

> And, I would have to say that it's completely their prerogative to do
> it - it's not going to "destroy the open source movement as we know
> it."

Yes, but what is at issue is that they went from a 'more open'
license to a 'more restrivtive' one, with no notice at all, and even
worse, contrary to the projects public statements that they wouldn't
be more restrictive. Within their right? Yes. Within everyone elses
right? Deleting it from our source control tree for future
development, untill such time as we have a large enough commitment to
decide to be able to address issues with it ourselves.

> Don't get me wrong, I think in this case the operators of MyGWT/GWT
> Ext seem to have handled this very poorly, miscommunicated, and or
> even possibly claimed they would NOT switch the license, which will
> (and should) piss people off - but you don't have to use it - and they
> don't have to keep the license the same forever - hence the reason I
> mentioned the people on the MyGWT list talking about porting it.

We're all on the same page I guess. Some people are just bitter
about it and wish to express those feelings.

---
Thomas

[David Given]

gregor wrote:
[...]

> If businesses can't rely (or even suspect they
> might not be able to) on open source components remaining LGPL they
> will not use them, and this will all but destroy the open source
> movement as we know it. Ext JS has a gun to the the head of anyone
> with significant investment in MyGWT and can in theory charge them
> whatever they like. I'm not saying they will, just that they could,
> and that's what is so damaging about this affair.

Um, not really. You can't change licenses retroactively. The version
you're currently using is LGPLd and always will be --- they can't change
that. The new license has no effect on your use of the older version.

If you don't like the new license, get together with some other people
who also don't like it, and fork the project.

Incidentally, it's also worth pointing out that only the copyright
holder of a piece of code can change the license. If anyone submitted
patches to the LGPL version of MyGWT, and did not assign copyright to
the MyGWT author, and if those patches are in the GPLv3 version, then
the MyGWT author is breaking copyright law.

--
David Given
d...@cowlark.com

[gregor]

Hi David,

Yes, if MyGWT was pukka LGPL then you would be right, the project
could be forked and continued use of the library would be fine.
However there seems to be a question over unacknowledged use of Ext JS
code in the LGPL MyGWT versions. If that was the case then Ext JS may
claim MyGWT breeches their copyright/license terms and therefore
anyone using it would be too.

regards
gregor

[pli...@gmail.com]

So let's step back for a moment, are there alternatives to myGWT (EXT
GWT now) ?
Or let me rephrase that, will they play with the license that freely
if there would be a good alternative (a competition) out there?

[Tim T]

I'd say that GWT 1.5 (with Incubator stuff and a bunch of open widget
implementation) are definitely becoming more complete in terms of
available UI widgets. Certainly, you don't have as much of the eye
candy there or sometimes consistency for easy theme styling, but I
think the richness of the functionality is there (and the performance
is also better, from what I see).

Another option is maybe GWT toolkit by ItMill, but it could be a
similar ball of wax as Ext - one day Apache license, another day
commercial...

There are a few production projects out there done in GWT (obviously
without use of MyGWT/Ext), that are quite successful and they look
quite complete without use of any extended widget libraries, but a lot
of coding done by their respective dev teams (beta.contactoffice.com,
lombardi's blueprint).