I'm not sure about him, but the license itself does not seem to make it clear, but on their web site, they define a developer:
"Are on a per developer basis. Each person who directly or indirectly creates an application or user interface containing Ext components is considered a developer." ( http://www.extjs.com/products/license.php ) The "indirectly" part is odd because there are many apps where you can do some configuration that generates something that will appear on a web page, and if that web page uses Ext, it would imply that person is a developer, though only by an odd definition that is not used anywhere else that I've seen before. Normally, a developer of a library would be the person who actually writes the code that uses the interface/library directly. So, if a user creates a "new calendar" to share with others, and the calendar that an actual developer created uses Ext, it could be suggested by that clause that the user is somehow a developer (indirectly). Same if it was a "greeting card" or "social network site" etc. If they even define a link that appears then appears on a page with Ext widgets also on it, they'd be indirectly developers by that broad definition. It's odd, because the license itself reads normally and contains no such overly broad definition of a developer. And while you may be able to argue it, and even win in a court because the license itself does not say it and normally the license would rule as the reasonable definition of a developer would not include such users, but who wants to fight a legal battle where there are no winners besides lawyers and there are alternatives out there that would not put your product/company at risk? We were told by Ext that our application would likely consider all of its users to be developers in their parlance because they are writing HTML code via CKEditor (which has no such broad strokes), and since the page that would show the HTML they developed might also contain at least 1 Ext widget of some sort, then they'd auto-magically because Ext developers. Go figure, but it does preclude our use since we can't have every user of our system be considered a developer as we'd have no way of knowing. Even sys-admins would configure items that would cause functionality to appear for users with a given permission, and that would be shown on a page containing Ext, so they'd now possibly be Ext developers, too. While it sounds untenable to me, lawsuits are expensive even if you win, so why bother? That's my 2 cents anyway since our lawyers said to pick an alternative rather than be have to worry about it. Too bad since Ext is really pretty, and their all-GWT GXT could be nice if in fact it's not too buggy as was also suggested. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to google-web-tool...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
