The problem with your argument is that the GPLv3 license is not implied it is explicit and unmodified, they don't even copy the terms of the GPL onto their site, they simply provide a direct link to the GPL hosted at gnu.org. And according to those terms, once they have granted a GPLv3 license to anyone, they have granted it to everyone. They can not restrict who they grant the GPLv3 license to.
Joe Lee
Nathan Andelin <nandelin@xxxxxxxxx> 01/20/2010 05:38 >>>
From: "Dean, Robert"
If the software is GPLv3, then this FAQ is authoritative ...
Hi Robert,
You seem to imply that ExtJS is under GPLv3, but they stipulate otherwise on their license page - indicating that their Commercial License applies in the event that the consumer choses NOT to release their source under GPLv3.
If you base your rights as if they were granted under GPLv3, but the licensor has not granted rights under it, then why imply otherwise?
Nathan.
-----Original Message-----
From: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nathan Andelin
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 7:53 PM
To: Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: Re: [WEB400] powerEXT - Clarifications from the author
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.
midrange.com
