Printable View
I'm developing a Framework built on Ext.NET, with customized controls and utility objects, etc. I'm interested in releasing both the source code and the compiled libraries. If I offer the source code only through a paid subscription (by using the Community Edition of Ext.NET), am I in violation of the Ext licensing terms?
Hi JoelAlejandro,
This is difficult to say 100% for sure without getting more details.
In principle your plan is permitted under the terms of the AGPLv3 license, as long as your full source-code (client+server) is provided/released with the same AGPLv3 open-source license.
Hope this helps.
I see. Now, let's suppose another developer grabs only my Framework's binaries and builds a closed-source application based on it. The developer offers the software for download, with no source code available. In that case, would he/she be allowed to do so? Or is the developer forced to abide to the AGPLv3?
This is impossible to do (legally). The license and the AGPLv3 rights/license we grant to you, then you grant to the next developer, and so on... cannot be removed or changed. At least not changed without permission from the original copyright holder(s).Quote:
Originally Posted by JoelAlejandro
A "closed-source" application cannot exist when using AGPLv3.
Of course, dumb question I made, hehe. So, Geoffrey, the developer must make available both source and binaries, regardless if the source's accesible through a paid subscription only (supposing he/she wants to imitate my distribution scenario). Is this correct?