ext.js moves to a commercial license

I first heard of this on some TWIT podcast so I went to see for myself but it appears that the ext.js Javascript framework has gone from an open source to a commercial license. This means that you have to pay if you use ext.js in an application that isn’t compatible with the GNU license. All of the applications I do fail this requirement.

This is too bad and effectively removes ext.js as a framework I will even consider. With dojo being the framework of choice come Domino 8.5 this will however not be too much of a loss.

8 thoughts on “ext.js moves to a commercial license”

  1. It probably is but since I’m in the Lotus Notes/Domino camp and IBM Lotus is betting on dojo for all their products the move to a commercial for-pay license just doesn’t make it interesting at all for me to try out. I’ll take a look at the FAQ to see if I drew too hasty a conclusion.


  2. I am very interested in ext.js especially the ext.nd extension.  I think that has great potential to allow developers to create better Domino applications quickly. 

    But I think this licensing change is going to kill ext.nd.  Users creating Domino based applications are not creating open source applications but  custom corporate applications.  So users of ext.js & ext.nd will need licences to both.  So why would anyone use ext.nd when other alternatives, like Dojo, are available, being used by the Domino server already, and don’t come with that licensing restriction.  I have seen some Domino & Dojo focused sites and tools already, I expect we will see more.


  3. Ext has been dual licensed for quite some time as commercial / Ext License (wrapped LGPL).  The complaint from many was that the Ext License was not truly open source.  Therefore, the change was made to GPL so that Ext could be fully open source compliant.  There are also some exceptions in the works to allow user extensions to maintain different but compatible license terms. 



    Ext has certainly not "moved to a commercial license".  It has merely embraced a more valid open-source licensing setup, and offers the same commercial license that was previously available.


  4. Having read the ext.js fora on the licensing issue, it seems to me that they have made a big mistake.  Not just in the way the change from LGPL to GPL for their open source version, but also because of they confusion they are causing in the open source community by  trying to "wrap" the LGPL and GPL.  This isn’t good for anyone.  Doing this damages the brand of the LGPL and GPL.  Is that software you thought was LGPL really LGPL, or has the creator "wrapped" it in additional conditions.  My understanding is that it is not possible to do this with the LGPL and GPL in any meaningful sense because of the conditions of the LGPL itself.

    I’d be interested if there is a comment anywhere from the FSF on the matter.

    In the mean time I’m steering clear.


  5. The commenters above—and the wider Ext.js discussions on the web—clearly show that Ext.js is no longer viable for a lot of application development work. Even if you could prove the changes are cheap, positive, blah blah (doubtful. LGPL -> GPL? Urgh, no thanks), there are far too many equally capable solutions out there, without the complex licensing issues that come with Ext.js. Most developers would simply opt for those.

    I would also be leery of any project that saw fit to change terms in the way those on Ext.js have.


Comments are closed.