initial commit, including theme

1 files changed, 408 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/content/posts/2008-05-15-don-t-use-extjs.html b/content/posts/2008-05-15-don-t-use-extjs.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..80ad15f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/posts/2008-05-15-don-t-use-extjs.html
@@ -0,0 +1,408 @@
+---
+date: "2008-05-15T07:26:16Z"
+title: Don't Use ExtJS
+---
+
+<p><style type='text/css'>
+  blockquote.quote {
+    font-family: arial, verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;
+    border-left: 2px solid #09d;
+    padding: 10px;
+    background-color: #efefef;
+  }
+</style>
+A couple of years ago I <a href="http://pablotron.org/?cid=1512">recommended</a> <a href="http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/">YUI</a> and <a href="http://extjs.com/">Ext</a> (formerly
+YUI-Ext).  I've changed my mind.  Don't use Ext at all.  The Ext license
+has changed four times since its inception, and each time the license
+has become more restrictive.  </p>
+
+<h2>History</h2>
+
+<p>Ext was originally created as an extension to YUI.  It was
+<a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php">BSD</a>-licensed, just like YUI. YUI-Ext added several sorely-needed
+features to YUI. The most notable additions were a layout system, a
+<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree&#95;view">Tree View</a> widget and a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid&#95;view">Data Grid</a> widget (YUI has since added
+each of these, although the YUI widgets are still less flexible than
+their Ext counterparts).  Eventually support was added for <a href="http://jquery.com/">jQuery</a>
+and <a href="http://www.prototypejs.org/">Prototype</a> as well.  The team dropped the "YUI-" prefix, and
+YUI-Ext became Ext.  </p>
+
+<p>Ext 1.0 was relicensed under the <a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.php">LGPL</a>.  Although switching from the
+BSD license to the LGPL is relatively innocuous, it is still significant
+because the LGPL is more restrictive than the BSD license.  </p>
+
+<p>Eventually the Ext team changed the license again.  The new license was
+a custom license that granted conditional LGPL <em>usage</em> rights.  Basically
+the LGPL usage clauses applied, but only if you weren't trying to
+develop a library or an Ext clone.  </p>
+
+<p>Confused?  Yeah, me too.  Here's the text from the old Ext "Open Source
+License":</p>
+
+<blockquote class="quote">
+  Ext is also licensed under the terms of the Open Source LGPL 3.0 license. You
+  may use our open source license if you:
+  <ul>
+    <li>Want to use Ext in an open source project that precludes using non-open source software</li>
+   <li>Plan to use Ext in a personal, educational or non-profit manner</li>
+   <li>Are using Ext in a commercial application that is not a software
+  development library or toolkit, you will meet LGPL requirements and you do not
+  wish to support the project</li>
+  </ul>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>A lot of open source developers were <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ext&#95;(javascript&#95;library)">understandably confused</a>
+by this hybrid license.  The biggest problem was that it wasn't clear
+whether this license was compatible with other Open Source licenses.  It
+also wasn't clear whether Ext could be legally distributed with Open
+Source software, since the license only granted LGPL <em>usage</em> rights, and
+not LGPL <em>distribution</em> rights.</p>
+
+<p>To address these complaints, the Ext team changed the license again:
+the latest version of Ext is licensed under the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU&#95;General&#95;Public&#95;License">GPLv3</a>.  This latest
+change complicates things quite a bit for many users, as we'll see in
+the next section.</p>
+
+<h2>Problems</h2>
+
+<p>The GPL is far more restrictive than the BSD license and LGPL.  It is
+rarely used for libraries, because the viral clause would effectively
+the library from being used for any non-GPL software.  In fact, these
+problem were <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU&#95;General&#95;Public&#95;License#Version&#95;2" title="GPLv2 and the LGPLv2.">addressed over 16 years ago</a> by creating the LGPL:</p>
+
+<blockquote class="quote">
+  By 1990, it was becoming apparent that a less restrictive license
+  would be strategically useful for some software libraries; when
+  version 2 of the GPL (GPLv2) was released in June 1991, therefore, a
+  second license - the Library General Public License (LGPL) was
+  introduced at the same time and numbered with version 2 to show that
+  both were complementary.  The version numbers diverged in 1999 when
+  version 2.1 of the LGPL was released, which renamed it the GNU Lesser
+  General Public License to reflect its place in the GNU philosophy.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Who is affected by this change?  In no particular order:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Extension Authors: Older Ext user extensions could be licensed as
+the author saw fit.  This is no longer true for the latest version
+of Ext; new user extensions must be GPL-licensed, because the viral
+clause prohibits using Ext with non-GPL licenses.</li>
+<li>Commercial Users: The previous licenses, even the questionable 
+custom license, allowed Ext to be used in closed source commercial
+applications.  This is no longer true for the latest version of Ext,
+because the viral clause prohibits using Ext with non-GPL commercial
+licenses.</li>
+<li>Non-GPL Open Source Developers: The BSD and LGPL-licensed versions
+of Ext could be used with other non-GPL software.  This is no longer
+true for the latest version of Ext, because the viral clause
+prohibits using Ext with non-GPL licenses.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>Things get even murkier when you consider linking and distribution.
+Does generating a dynamic page count as linking to Ext?  Does any public
+web application automatically count as distribution?  What about
+applications which use Ext to and access a common APi, such as a SOAP
+endpoint or RSS feed?</p>
+
+<p>These questions were posted in a 
+<a href="http://extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33096">thread about the license change on the ExtJS forums</a>.<br/>
+Here's how <a href="http://jackslocum.com/blog/">Jack Slocum</a>, the primary Ext developer, <a href="http://extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?p=156236#post156236">responded</a>:</p>
+
+<blockquote class="quote">
+  <p>
+    If you are generating any markup or javascript code via the server in a
+    page SPECIFICALLY designed for Ext, then that server code will have to
+    be GPL as well.
+  </p>
+
+  <p>
+    For example:
+  </p>
+
+  <ul>
+    <li>
+      Suppose you have an index.php that includes Ext JS. According to the
+      FSF, in that case index.php would be also under GPL since it is using
+      ext. Since it must be GPL, it's source must be distributed. Since it
+      is GPL, the "viral" effect of GPL is now in effect and any thing that
+      uses index.php (if anything) on the serverside would also fall under
+      the GPL. (Note: Note this is a pretty gray area)
+    </li>
+
+    <li>
+      Suppose you are using server-side code to generate javascript that
+      interacts with Ext JS. That code must also be GPL.
+    </li>
+  </ul>
+
+  <p>
+    Like MySql and other GPL software the way to use GPL code without
+    having to license under GPL is to not bundle or distribute the GPL
+    code with your application. If you instead have the end user
+    (developer?) download and install ext js on their own, they are then
+    bound to the license and not you or your software.
+  </p>
+
+  <p>
+    For those seeking an FAQ, we have defined and explained some of the
+    reasoning and license implications under these 2 pages:
+  </p>
+
+  <p>
+    <a href='http://extjs.com/products/license.php'>http://extjs.com/products/license.php</a>
+  </p>
+
+  <p>
+    <a href='http://extjs.com/company/dual.php'>http://extjs.com/company/dual.php</a>
+  </p>
+
+  <p>
+    It's worth noting that the examples given at the beginning of this
+    post are just my opinion and it is impossible for us to analyze
+    everyone's usage and say whether or not someone "complies" with the
+    GPL. That really is a task for an attorney or even someone with
+    better knowledge of your application and how Ext JS is used.
+  </p>
+
+  <p>
+    In the end, we want Ext JS to be open source friendly and still have
+    a good business model in place to grow. The old Ext License was not
+    open source friendly and pretty much killed all options for use in
+    open source projects. That wasn't our goal so we had to address it.
+  </p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>There are several problems with the statements above.  The biggest one
+is that the original BSD license and subsequent LGPL license had none of
+this ambiguity.  </p>
+
+<p>In other words, the problem the Ext team is trying to fix is one they
+created themselves.  If that wasn't bad enough, the solution actually 
+hurts many Open Source developers far more than it helps.</p>
+
+<p>In an attempt to clarify the situation for non-GPL Open Source
+developers, I posted several questions in the Ext license thread.  I
+also created a post on <a href="http://reddit.com/">Reddit</a> about the license change and
+summarized my questions there:</p>
+
+<blockquote class="quote">
+  <p>
+    As of page 8 of the thread on the license change I have yet to receive a
+    response, simple or otherwise, to any of my comments:
+  </p>
+
+  <p>
+    There's <a href='http://extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?p=156337#post156337'>this comment</a>:
+  </p>
+
+  <blockquote class="quote">
+    The new license prevents Open Source software that is using a
+    license other than the GPL from using Ext. Applications which use
+    popular Open Source licenses like the LGPL license, BSD license, MIT
+    license, and the Artistic license would be required to either
+    re-license under the GPL, carefully design their application to meet
+    the requirements in your post, use an older LGPL-licensed version of
+    Ext, or move to another library entirely.
+  </blockquote>
+
+  <p>
+    And <a href='http://extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?p=156356#post156356'>this one</a>:
+  </p>
+
+  <blockquote class="quote">
+    What about authors who which to provide their software under a
+    license that is more permissive than the GPL, such as the MIT or BSD
+    licenses?
+  </blockquote>
+
+  <p>
+    And <a href='http://extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?p=156382#post156382'>this
+    one</a>, which was directly in response to Jack Slocum, the primary
+    author of ExtJS:
+  </p>
+
+  <blockquote class="quote">
+    <p>
+      Hi Jack,
+    </p>
+
+    <p>
+      I can see how switching to a license without exceptions would make
+      things simpler, but what about those of us who release Open Source
+      software under non-GPL licenses such as the BSD, MIT, and Artistic
+      licenses?
+    </p>
+  </blockquote>
+
+  <p>
+    I've been an Ext user since its inception as YUI-Ext, but the fact that
+    I cannot seem to get a straight answer to a simple question makes me
+    wary and extremely skeptical.
+  </p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p><a href="http://ejohn.org/">John Resig</a>, the author of <a href="http://jquery.com/">jQuery</a> and <a href="http://ejohn.org/blog/processingjs/">Processing.js</a>,
+responded:</p>
+
+<blockquote class="quote">
+  It's important to understand that OSS developers are not their target
+  audience at all. I'm 100% certain that we'll never get a clear
+  response.  They're using 'open source' as a buzzword selling point to
+  lure companies in, befuddle them with confusing viral licensing, and
+  obligate them (through the obvious balking that the corporate lawyers
+  will do) to get them to buy a full, corporate, license. It's very
+  sneaky, quite disingenuous, and paints a bad picture for open source
+  development as a whole.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>It's been over three weeks since these this exchange on Reddit. None of
+my questions have been answered on the Ext license pages or in the
+68-page license thread on the Ext forums.</p>
+
+<h2>Rationale</h2>
+
+<p>According to the <a href="http://extjs.com/company/dual.php">Ext license page</a>, Ext licensing is based on the
+principle of "Quid Pro Quo", or "something for something":</p>
+
+<blockquote class="quote">
+  <p>
+    Dual Licensing is based on the principle of Quid Pro Quo -
+    "something for something". In return for the advantages you realize
+    from using an Ext product to create your application, we require
+    that you do one of the following:
+  </p>
+
+  <ul>
+    <li>
+      Contribute to the continued development of the product by
+      purchasing commercial licenses from Ext. This option secures you
+      the right to distribute your application under the license terms
+      of your choice
+    </li>
+
+    <li>
+      Contribute to the Open Source community by placing your
+      application under an Open Source license (e.g. GPL v3). This
+      option secures all users the rights to obtain the application's
+      full source code, modify it, and redistribute it.
+    </li>
+  </ul>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>The justification for using the GPLv3 instead of the LGPL is addressed
+on the <a href="http://extjs.com/products/license-faq.php">Ext license FAQ page</a>:</p>
+
+<blockquote class="quote">
+  We considered once again releasing under straight LGPL but it was not
+  an option as a business. We tried that with version 1.0 and found out
+  quickly that it enabled others (e.g. large commercial entities) to
+  take our work, wrap it up and sell it as their own. With no mention of
+  us at all. We, as a business with a full time team of talented
+  developers, can not exist under those circumstances. We would quickly
+  become diluted and competing with ourselves. 
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>The concern about others taking their work and selling it without
+attribution is particularly ironic, considering:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Ext only exists because a large corporation (Yahoo!) decided to
+share their hard work under a permissive open source license </li>
+<li>Significant portions of Ext, including the Event
+handling code and reset.css, were copied wholesale from YUI</li>
+<li>The Ext object system comes from YUI, which is based on 
+<a href="http://dean.edwards.name/weblog/2006/03/base/">Dean Edwards' JavaScript inheritance code</a></li>
+<li>Many of the older Ext icons originally came from the 
+<a href="http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/">Famfamfam Silk icon set</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>What do the projects above have in common?  That's right, they are all
+in the public domain or available under extremely permissive Open Source
+licenses.  </p>
+
+<p>The Ext team is certainly entitled to license and sell their software
+any way they see fit.  However, it is hypocritical and dishonest to
+complain about other people taking your work and selling it as their own
+when you take other peoples' work and either sell it as your own or
+relicense it under an extremely restrictive license.</p>
+
+<p>It is tempting to attribute this entire fiasco to a simple
+misunderstanding on the part of Jack Slocum and the Ext team.  Here's
+what I had to say on Reddit:</p>
+
+<blockquote class="quote">
+  It is a bit disconcerting that Ext has such strong roots in existing
+  Open Source software, and yet the project seems at best partially
+  indifferent, and at worst, outright hostile to the Open Source
+  community.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Unfortunately, according to John Resig, this isn't the first time that
+there have been problems with the Ext team:</p>
+
+<blockquote class="quote">
+  <p>
+    We (the jQuery project) worked hard with them to try and fix bugs
+    and add features for an ExtJS integration layer. They turned around
+    and built their own, specialized, library (removing the need for any
+    of our work) and then mutated the licensing into this bizzaro scheme
+    that they have now. We can't, in good consciousness, even recommend
+    their library anymore due to its very nature. On top of this they
+    ended up hiring our lead evangelist to promote their work. I can't
+    speak for everyone on the team but I feel quite frustrated and used.
+  </p>
+
+  <p>
+    They're providing a great disservice to the Open Source community in
+    general. They consume with reckless abandon, it's impossible to even
+    hope to borrow code from them, and they turn it all into a
+    money-making machine. No aspect of that sits well with me.
+  </p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Jack Slocum did <a href="http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2008/04/28/more-on-extjs-the-gpl-fiasco-and-open-source-community-style/">respond to this comment on a separate blog</a>.  He also
+<a href="http://jackslocum.com/blog/2008/04/26/ext-js-license-change-and-personal-attacks/">wrote a post on his blog</a>.  Neither adequately addresses John
+Ressig's main points or my questions from the Ext forums, so I won't
+bother quoting his mostly vacuous responses here.</p>
+
+<h2>Conclusion</h2>
+
+<p>To recap, the reasons I recommend against using Ext are:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>A trend towards more restrictive licenses</li>
+<li>Team is unwilling or unable to address licensing issues</li>
+<li>Blatant disregard for other Open Source projects</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>Some suggestions for the Ext team:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Release Ext under the LGPLv3, BSD license, or GPLv3 with the
+<a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WMS">special provision</a> </li>
+<li>Provide the Ext artwork and CSS under one of the licenses above,
+or one of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative&#95;Commons&#95;licenses">Creative Commons attribution licenses</a></li>
+<li>Update the Ext license FAQ with detailed information about
+which Open Source licenses are compatible with Ext, including
+specific usage scenarios</li>
+<li>Add a list of Open Source software which Ext has borrowed from to
+the license page and to the license information included in
+the download</li>
+<li>Put older versions of Ext back on the download page</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>Finally, here are a list of Ext alternatives.  None are as nice as Ext,
+but they are all available under permissive licenses and they each have
+an active and enthusiastic user community:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li><a href="http://dojotoolkit.org/projects/dijit">Dojo/Dijit</a> (BSD license)</li>
+<li><a href="http://echo.nextapp.com/site/echo2">Echo2</a> (MPL license)</li>
+<li><a href="http://docs.jquery.com/UI">jQuery/jQuery UI</a> (BSD license)</li>
+<li><a href="http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/">YUI</a> (BSD license)</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>Comments are still broken at the moment.  I've posted this article on
+<a href="http://reddit.com/">Reddit</a>, so feel free to <a href="http://reddit.com/info/6jhhs/comments/">comment there</a>.</p>
+