I agree that either Ext has no idea what open source is, or it does and is trying to introduce uncertainty against open source to increase sales. The creator of Ext claimed that Ext is not an “evil empire”. At the rate that the negative publicity is piling up, maybe the claim will become true because the second word will no longer be applicable.

According to that definition, ext-js team really don’t have a clue about what open source means.
There are at least a couple of points where the ‘additional restrictions’ on ext-js go against the Open Source Definition:

1. Free Redistribution
3. Derived Works
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

GWT-Ext creator slammed Ext:

http://www.jroller.com/sjivan/entry/my_response_to_jack_slocum

The CTO in charge of Groovy/Grails also responded negatively to Ext:

http://graemerocher.blogspot.com/2008/04/choosing-and-oss-license-and-ext-js.html

Someone has started a fork of Ext JS 2.0.2 as discussed in the thread below.

http://gwt-ext.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1061

Here is the justification for the fork with the CSS and images intact:

http://openext.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/openext/trunk/LICENSE.txt?view=markup

Direct link to the project:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/openext/

Also, according to a post in the huge “License Change?” thread extjs.com, someone from InfoQ may have started or is thinking about starting a fork of Ext JS. If anyone knows more about this, please let me know.

“Does it say anything misleading, perhaps giving the impression that something is covered by the License when in fact it is not?”

Seem familiar?

http://www.fsf.org/about/contact.html

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-violation.html

The original idea was just to allow svn:externals properties to pull in the extjs libraries on demand in a few projects I’m working on.

The original LGPL3 2.0.2 release of ExtJS is in the repo, tagged under:
http://extjs-public.googlecode.com/svn/tags/ext-2.0.2/release/

Ext JS library is distributed with JavaScript, CSS, and images. Without any one of the three, the library will essentially not work. The first license never states that CSS and images are not considered part of Ext JS. Also, the first license could be interpreted as meaning that there are no restrictions on JavaScript code. Therefore, someone can potentially transfer the JavaScript code to public domain by accepting the first license. IANAL.

I am not sure if I would agree with your statement that the default is to favor the copyright holder.

I did a google search on this term: ambiguous license.

According to the first link, “the general rule in most jurisdictions is that ambiguities in software license agreements will be construed against the drafter.”

http://blawg.scottandscottllp.com/softwareaudits/2008/01/license_ambiguities_in_softwar.html

The also is definitely confusing, however I think the first line of “Assets” section provides enough clarification:

“The Assets distributed with Ext …”

Whereas the subsequent section defines terms for Ext itself:

“Ext is also licensed under the terms…”

“In my non-lawyer opinion, an ambiguous license like this will probably not hold up in court and will probably not favor the copyright holder.”

The default is to favor the copyright holder, not the user. Remember, we have no rights unless they grant them to us. If there is a reason to cause that the grant may not be valid, we could have no rights. That’s why my corp legal won’t allow me to use Ext JS under 2.0.2 and we have to purchase commercial license now.

I assume that you mean the CSS files under resources/css. You make a good point.

However, reading LICENSE.txt in the Ext JS 2.0.2 package, the “also” term right after the section for license of CSS and graphics can be interpreted as meaning the images and CSS are part of Ext and are also licensed under LGPL. In my non-lawyer opinion, an ambiguous license like this will probably not hold up in court and will probably not favor the copyright holder. IANAL.

From LICENSE.txt:

{cut}

License of CSS and Graphics (”Assets”)

{cut}

Open Source License

Ext is _also_ licensed under the terms of the Open Source LGPL 3.0 license.

{cut}

Therefore, one interpretation is that there are four mutually exclusive licenses and you have to choose one:

#1 License of CSS and Graphics (”Assets”)
#2 Open Source License
#3 Commercial License
#4 OEM / Reseller License

If someone decides to choose #2, then he/she may legally ignore #1, #3, and #4. IANAL.