Re: powerEXT - Clarifications from the author

[Nathan Andelin <nandelin@xxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Joe Lee
> Since they have chosen to license their product under GPLv3,
> they are bound by its provisions, and since in-house use and
> modifications are acceptable under GPLv3, they cannot force
> you to use their commercial license instead of the GPL.

Since they hold exclusive rights to their software, they can stipulate whether "a use" of their software falls under GPLv3 or a commercial license.  You're veering off in left field if you're saying that in-house closed-source use falls under the GPL, rather the Commercial license.  They make it quite clear that proprietary closed-source development using ExtJS falls under the Commercial license.

> The only reason you would be required to purchase a commercial license
> is if you wanted to distribute an application containing ExtJS under a non
> GPLv3 compatible license. 

Well, your interpretation is not in-line with what ExtJS is saying on their license page:

http://www.extjs.com/products/license.php

This is not worth arguing over.  For me, it underscores the fact that open-source licensing is a can of worms from the start - the perception is generally incongruent with the reality.  For example, the GPLv3 doesn't even mention "in-house use" vs. "commercial".

Nathan.