Be VERY aware that if you intend to use the GPL version of this, Sencha's official view is that you must release your BACKEND code under the GPL as well, if that backend is required for the frontend software to function. See https://www.sencha.com/legal/open-source-faq/ :
> Let’s say that the application has a front-end (that generates web pages linked to Ext JS JavaScript) that communicates over JSON/HTTP with a backend service. This backend service contains approval and validation logic for this application alone. Even if only the front-end uses Ext JS code, you should consider that the combination of front and back ends constitutes the application, and the source code for both back and front end would need to be provided to the application’s end users under GPLv3 if the application is used by an end-user who is not part of the same legal entity that holds the GPLv3 license to the Ext JS code.
<insert spit take> I'd LOVE to see this taken to court; either way it falls, it would be needed clarity on how the GPL works in the modern world. Personally, though, I wouldn't touch anything containing the word Sencha with a 30 foot pole.
IANAL, but AFAIK the GPLv3 has only the requirement that all software that is built upon the licenced software (and couldn't work without the licenced software) musto be released under that license. Likely, your backend will be REST/GraphQL/some well-known alternative-enabled, meaning you could reasonably use [relevant request debugging tool] as the only endpoint for your APIs, which makes your backend loosely coupled to the frontend and therefore it does not have to be released under GPL. Maybe when your backend e.g. is going to send implementation-specific data for the frontend, it can be considered for a licence-lock. Again, IANAL, but this is what I think read while checking the GPL-FAQ
My interpretation of Sencha's reading is that because the user-facing web application overall is built upon GPL software, and it requires the backend to function, the backend is part of that application, regardless of whether it has other merits. Again, IANAL but presumably Sencha hired some to advise that FAQ.
then they'd basically saying "because you depend on software X and our GPL-software, you need to make software X GPL as well. That probably won't hold in court.
5 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 16.0 ms ] thread> Let’s say that the application has a front-end (that generates web pages linked to Ext JS JavaScript) that communicates over JSON/HTTP with a backend service. This backend service contains approval and validation logic for this application alone. Even if only the front-end uses Ext JS code, you should consider that the combination of front and back ends constitutes the application, and the source code for both back and front end would need to be provided to the application’s end users under GPLv3 if the application is used by an end-user who is not part of the same legal entity that holds the GPLv3 license to the Ext JS code.
<insert spit take> I'd LOVE to see this taken to court; either way it falls, it would be needed clarity on how the GPL works in the modern world. Personally, though, I wouldn't touch anything containing the word Sencha with a 30 foot pole.
(I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.)