Bug 471509

Summary: Review Request: extjs - Ext JS is a cross-browser JavaScript library for building rich internet applications.
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Mohak Vyas <mohakvyas>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: a.badger, ctyler.fedora, fedora-package-review, lemenkov, notting, rfontana, tcallawa
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-07-17 14:25:29 EDT Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 201449    

Description Mohak Vyas 2008-11-13 21:12:15 EST
Spec URL: 


Koji Build:

Ext JS is a cross-browser JavaScript library for building rich internet applications. It includes:
 * High performance, customizable UI widgets.
 * Well designed and extensible Component model.
 * An intutive, easy to use API.
Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2008-11-14 08:24:42 EST
I don't see any names matching yours in the account system; what's your FAS ID?  Do you require a sponsor?

I recall that extjs has some licensing issues; please see bug 455474.  If you can, please indicate how things have changed since that ticket (if indeed they have).  I'll go ahead and ask the legal folks to have a look.

Please also note that a few folks are trying to develop packaging guidelines for javascript, but there are many issues.  Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/JavaScript and perhaps become involved in the process if you want to package javascript libraries.  I don't think we'll be approving any javascript packages until the guidelines progress a bit further.
Comment 2 Tom "spot" Callaway 2008-11-14 16:56:49 EST
Okay, so let me explain this.

The latest version of ExtJS claims to be under GPLv3 with an exception, documented here: http://extjs.com/products/floss-exception.php

RH Legal is firm that this exception clause isn't valid.

One of the conditions for the exception is:

  the Derivative Work can reasonably be considered independent and
  separate work that is intended for use by end-users and not as a
  library for software development purposes.

This doesn't make sense. "Independent and separate" from what?  By
definition the Derivative Work is formed by combining Ext with some
FLOSS work, so it can't be "independent and separate" from those. 

Moreover, how do you determine whether a Derivative Work is "intended
for use by end-users and not as a library for software development
purposes"?  Well, to some degree you might be able to, but it raises
disturbing questions.  This sounds very much like a field-of-use
limitation.  If any such work actually were declared to be "intended
for use solely by end-users" surely that would make such a work
non-free.  (Non-open-source, even.)  Does "not as a library for
software development purposes" suggest that the Derivative Work must
be under terms that prohibit modification?  At best this is
disturbingly unclear.

There are a couple of other points one could make as well. 

The sum conclusion here is that Fedora and its users are not safe to use the exception clause in ExtJS. However, there is no barrier to using it under GPLv3.

This means unfortunately that items like Testopia are right out, due to license incompatibility with GPLv3, but it doesn't prevent ExtJS from inclusion in Fedora on its own merit. BE SURE that anything you use with ExtJS is compatible with GPLv3!

All of this text needs to go in a file in the package called "README-Fedora-Licensing", and the spec needs to reflect it like this:

# The FLOSS Exception is NOT VALID for this package, see:
# README-Fedora-Licensing
License: GPLv3

... Lifting FE-Legal
Comment 3 Jason Tibbitts 2008-12-16 22:13:41 EST
I note there's been no response to these comments from the submitter in over a month.  I will close this ticket soon if there is no further action.
Comment 4 Mohak Vyas 2008-12-19 18:10:21 EST
FAS ID: Vyas    
IRC Nick: Vyas

Yes I need a sponsor. Here are the new .src.rpm and .spec file.

Spec URL:


I am watching the packaging guidelines for JavaScript packages page so I can edit my package accordingly.
Comment 5 Mohak Vyas 2009-03-27 16:31:18 EDT
Its been a long time and I don't see any updates on the JavaScript packaging guidelines. I was wondering what are we gonna do now. If we are not gonna block the packages, can someone please review it.
Comment 6 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2009-04-09 13:59:13 EDT
A quick look at the spec shows a few problems:

1) You didn't follow spot's directions -- there's no explanation of the licensing issues in the spec file.
2) The source URL doesn't have a comment explaining how to get the zip file
3) The Fedora README isn't included as a SourceX: line in the spec... that leads me to believe you've modified the upstream zip file to include it which is not allowed.

As for packaging guidelines... That's somewhat my fault.  I've been busy and there's been blockers in other packages that have made packaging javascript libraries not work the way I'd like.  One package has been recently fixed which makes it possible for this to work again.  I'm looking into updating the Guidelines.

If you're interested in Javascript libraries, it would be highly beneficial to help drive this forward.  You can take the existing Draft as a basis or talk to me about my idea for a static-library like change.
Comment 7 Jason Tibbitts 2009-07-10 13:35:13 EDT
It's been three months since Toshio's commentary with no response, and still no package that fixes the licensing issues pointed out nearly eight months ago.  I'll close this ticket soon if there's no further progress.
Comment 8 Jason Tibbitts 2009-07-17 14:25:29 EDT
No response; closing.