* High performance, customizable UI widgets.
* Well designed and extensible Component model.
* An intutive, easy to use API.
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.
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
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:
... Lifting FE-Legal
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.
FAS ID: Vyas
IRC Nick: Vyas
Yes I need a sponsor. Here are the new .src.rpm and .spec file.
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.
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.
No response; closing.