Comment by avenger123 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by avenger123 | Hacker News Reader

The previous GPLv3 was the complete package.

This change actually removes features that the GPLv3 had. In particular, the main one and the reason most companies would want to buy a commercial license now is the Grid component. I understand their complete package will have ASP.NET MVC bindings but those aren't necessary.

So, in a way, this is really bad news for open source projects as it effectively takes away a component that is at the heart of why Kendo UI may be used instead of jQuery UI.

They have in effect basically screwed over completely open source projects. For them the only change is that they lose functionality.

But, Telerik is a for-proit company and they've always struggled with the licensing for this as they didn't know how it would fit with their commercial goals. I don't think they've got it right now.

Personally, I see no reason to use this even now. jQuery UI is not maintained by a commercial company and is just as good. I can be confident that the license for jQuery UI isn't going to be messed around with based on new corporate goals. The Kendo UI versus jQuery UI site does a good job of doing the comparison but without the grid component, its a hard sell.

EDIT: I do want to add that overall this is great news. I'm pointing out the nuances of this decision. For people already using this and don't need the other components or can find substitutes, it makes sense to continue to use it and not have to buy licenses. Also, I hope Telerik somehow addresses this and not ignore it.

I prefer a library with Apache2 over GPLv3 even with less features, because I can use it everywhere. More use --> more contributions.

Commercial interest in a library makes it more appealing for me, because it means there is money for long term development/maintenance, and I think it's much more likely that it will be not abandoned compared to an alternative open source project without commercial interest in it. Ok, jquery UI is huge and it will not go away, but if I want to go with a library similar to Kendo, I would choose Kendo over that!

I can't even wrap my head around why someone would care about fully permissive licenses over GPL for front end JavaScript libraries, everyone gets access to your source when you serve it to them anyway.

...because people are interested in using this code in projects, and you can expect legal action if you use unlicensed code in your project, particularly if it's a commercial project?

  everyone gets access to your source when you serve it to them anyway.

This means it's also very easy for license-holders to see and prove that you're using their code in an unlicensed fashion.

Not necessarily. There are many rich client applications (say, for instance, an in-browser multimedia editor or webmail client) whose JS code might be nontrivial and distributed only in minified/obfuscated form, for the company to maintain a competitive advantage over imitators. In that case, those companies would not want to use GPL'ed JS libraries, since they would then be required to provide the JS source code of the entire rest of their client in unminified form.

Also, there are statements like these, from the primary developer of Ext.js which went GPL for a while a few years ago:

> 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)

However, this is the exact opposite of what the FSF's FAQ on the GPL actually says.

> A company is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web site. Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources? (#UnreleasedMods)

> The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release the modified sources. It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing those modifications. However, putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly “private” use, so it would be legitimate to require release of the source code in that special case. Developers who wish to address this might want to use the GNU Affero GPL for programs designed for network server use.

Now, if I took these two passages to my corporate lawyer and asked him whether we should use Ext.js with closed-source server-side software even if it might open us up to a lawsuit from Ext.js due to their interpretation of the contract, he would take one look at me and smack me on the head for suggesting that we open ourselves up to something like that.

EDIT: Sources.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods

http://www.sencha.com/forum/showthread.php?33096-License-Cha...

I think I will shoot the EFF an email asking for an update on that now that GPL3 is trying to accomplish the same thing as the Affero license (anti-Tivoization). That '#UnreleasedMods' section appears to have been written for GPL2.

Please let HN know if you learn anything! There's so much FUD in this space, it's very difficult to know what one can use safely.

Access to source != legal rights to use that source. You couldn't, for example, use GMail's front-end in your own product, even if you could decipher it. If GMail used GPLed source code, you could.

It doesn't matter so much for websites and small apps, but for complex apps it does start to matter.

Legally, the minified form is considered the "executable" form, not source code form, with respect to javascript (at least with respect to the MPL-2.0 which enumerates this in the license or possible the FAQ about the license. I'm not certain about the GPL).

This means that technically, with a copyleft license that isn't the MPL-2.0, you need to make available the option to get your javascript, not just the copyleft libraries you build upon, in unminified source code form.

At the end of the day, the MPL is a great license because it balances business needs with the needs of the common. The only reason for businesses to dislike it is because it comes with a slightly higher cost in the form of the burden to provide the original source to the MPL parts or let the end user know how to acquire a copy. This is a pretty minimal engineering cost that shouldn't be much more than an hours worth of labor unless you modify the MPL-ed source and need to make your modified version available. Even then, it shouldn't be more than a day or two of labor if you know what you're doing. You just need to make sure that your build system uploads the MPLed version somewhere or your MPLed modified source is available somewhere like github and your minified code gives people a link to the place where the unminified MPL code lives.

The question is: If I buy a commercial license for the Grid component, can I use it in my Apache2/GPLv3 open source project? In my view it's no longer possible to use any of the commercial-only components in an open source project.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com