⚠️ Urgent! Active Attacks on MODX Revolution Sites Below Revolution 2.6.5
Subscribe: RSS
  • I read that Revolution manager uses Ext JS, and that modx also provides extensions to this library (modext). I would like to know if Ext JS is somehow "bundled" with modx, and if yes, does it mean I can use it without paying them? I suppose not, because it costs a lot.

    If the answer is no like I suspect, I want to suggest to modx team that they could try to make some kind of agreement with Ext JS, asking that users of Ext JS on modx powered setups should have a (big) discount on all the licenses or at least on the developer and team ones.

    It could be good for Ext JS to attract users/customers using the modx vehicle, and for modx providing a nice Ext JS discount for its users.
    • You can use ExtJS for free as long as you share the code with the communauty, which in the case of MODx, is open source.

      But it’s an interesting question, since most of people will take MODx and sell applications based on it.
      In this case, do the license applied in the one with MODx (so no pb) or the one of ExtJS?
      • Quote from: insert_nick at Oct 04, 2009, 11:34 PM

        I read that Revolution manager uses Ext JS, and that modx also provides extensions to this library (modext). I would like to know if Ext JS is somehow "bundled" with modx, and if yes, does it mean I can use it without paying them? I suppose not, because it costs a lot.
        No, it does not. MODx uses the Open Source license of ExtJS, and therefore is in GPL.

        If you want to use MODExt and sell MODExt-based products, you will have to adhere to GPL licensing. If you want to use ExtJS alone, I would assume you’ll have to use their licensing programs.


        If the answer is no like I suspect, I want to suggest to modx team that they could try to make some kind of agreement with Ext JS, asking that users of Ext JS on modx powered setups should have a (big) discount on all the licenses or at least on the developer and team ones. It could be good for Ext JS to attract users/customers using the modx vehicle, and for modx providing a nice Ext JS discount for its users.
        Sounds good, but I doubt they’ll buy it. MODx Revolution is still in beta, and doesn’t have a big enough market share - not to mention that gets gray, as MODx as free - ExtJS commercially is not.

        Now, with GPL, you’re free to distribute, as long as you include the source code with every distribution.
          shaun mccormick | bigcommerce mgr of software engineering, former modx co-architect | github | splittingred.com
        • Note also that this only applies to 3PCs using MODExt. 3PCs *do not* have to use MODExt. They can use nothing, for all it matters.
            shaun mccormick | bigcommerce mgr of software engineering, former modx co-architect | github | splittingred.com
          • Just keep in mind, ExtJS is not free "commercially" only if you modify it or extend it in some way and don’t want to distribute those modifications as GPL. Just trying to clarify, since the word "commercially" is really irrelevant here. See http://www.extjs.com/products/license-faq.php#mod for more information.
            • I’m a bit confused with the replies. Let’s take it simple: put tags true/false/nonsense to each one of the following scenarios, or modify the sentences as needed, with the assumption that ’A’ does not modify modx and/or extJS code, but only builds a site/app using them as they are:

              - ’A’ sells a site/app done with modx to ’B’ and does not make use of modext or extJS: A *has* to give code tree of the product to B if asked for it and has to pay extJS;

              - ’A’ sells a site/app done with modx to ’B’, and does make use of extJS but not modext: A *has* to give code tree of the product to B if asked for it and has to pay extJS;

              - ’A’ sells a site/app done with modx to ’B’, and does make use of modext but not extJS: A *has* to give code tree of the product to B if asked for it and has to pay extJS;

              - ’A’ sells a site/app done with modx to ’B’, and does make use of both extJS and modext: A *has* to give code tree of the product to B if asked for it and has to pay extJS;

              Please add some other scenario that you think could help in making things clear. Thank you very much.
              • They are all nonsense IMO, and I’ll explain why I believe that.

                You can sell GPL code regardless, you just can’t change the license or limit the person’s rights you distribute it to. Unless you plan to encrypt the source code somehow, you are distributing the source anyway, so you might as well provide your customer the same rights you have with the code.

                Now, if you plan to distribute an app built on the MODx platform that uses MODExt/ExtJS, but do not want to release it under a GPL-compatible license, then you would need to worry about purchasing developer licenses from ExtJS. To be honest, I see no benefit to you as a developer/service provider to distribute custom applications you build with MODx with anything other than a GPL-compatible license anyway. If you are building generic applications and want to distribute them without a GPL license and you do not use MODExt/ExtJS, that’s fine with us, but we encourage you too; you can make money selling/supporting the application without making the source code proprietary and contribute to the MODx community in the process.
                • Does the GPL propagate on stuff built "on top of" GPL’d software (as sites/apps are in respect of MODx and ExtJS) or does it apply only on modifications/copies of it?

                  Just to make a simple case:

                  If ’A’ sells the demo site of a default MODx installation, with full root access to the hosting platform for the client, and ’A’ only adds e.g. a document node with just an empty grid of 2x2 cells, made with ExtJS and ModExt, will ’A’ have to pay an ExtJS license or not? And, can the code showing the grid be released under a license different from GPL, and eventually be hidden/obfuscated/unaccessible (in whatever way) from the client?

                  This is not to avoid sharing in general, but there are situations where having these concepts clear can avoid embarassement or rules breaking (e.g. development of parts by 3rd-party not allowing to reveal code outside recipient ’A’).
                  • http://books.slashdot.org/story/09/09/28/1425228/Learning-Ext-JS?from=rss

                    The comments section has some stuff about the ExtJs licence
                    • Quote from: insert_nick at Oct 06, 2009, 02:20 PM

                      Does the GPL propagate on stuff built "on top of" GPL’d software (as sites/apps are in respect of MODx and ExtJS) or does it apply only on modifications/copies of it?
                      My understanding is it only propagates to something that modifies or extends the MODx or ExtJS source code, with modifications defined in the link I provided.

                      Quote from: insert_nick at Oct 06, 2009, 02:20 PM

                      If ’A’ sells the demo site of a default MODx installation, with full root access to the hosting platform for the client, and ’A’ only adds e.g. a document node with just an empty grid of 2x2 cells, made with ExtJS and ModExt, will ’A’ have to pay an ExtJS license or not? And, can the code showing the grid be released under a license different from GPL, and eventually be hidden/obfuscated/unaccessible (in whatever way) from the client?
                      First, if you are building something custom for a single client involving their design elements or providing a grid view into their custom data table (without modifying the behavior of the grid code), and unless contract specifies otherwise, I would expect that is the IP of you and/or your client and falls under copyright. This is a separate issue from the use and licensing of the underlying framework on which you construct these things.

                      But getting back to licensing, if you distribute a MODx component separately from the MODx core (which includes ExtJS), and the component package does not modify the MODx or ExtJS source code (again as defined by the link I provided), my understanding is it can be whatever license you want. If you distribute it as a single package, it would need to all be GPLv3-compatible. This is why we will be distinguishing between Add-Ons and Core Extensions in MODx; Add-Ons do not modify the MODx core or extend it’s classes/functions directly and can be any license you choose (though we encourage GPL), while Core Extensions can modify/extend the core, but must be GPLv3 compatible.

                      I can speak only for the MODx project in this regard and am not a lawyer, so take my opinions and understandings only as the spirit of our intent, which is to provide an Open Source Content Management Framework for building web sites and to prevent others from stealing our work and presenting it as their own without providing us access to any modifications they make.