Not necessarily. There are many rich client applications (say, for instance, an in-browser multimedia editor or webmail client) whose JS code might be nontrivial and distributed only in minified/obfuscated form, for the company to maintain a competitive advantage over imitators. In that case, those companies would not want to use GPL'ed JS libraries, since they would then be required to provide the JS source code of the entire rest of their client in unminified form.
Also, there are statements like these, from the primary developer of Ext.js which went GPL for a while a few years ago:
Suppose you have an index.php that includes Ext JS. According to the FSF, in that case index.php would be also under GPL since it is using ext. Since it must be GPL, it's source must be distributed. Since it is GPL, the "viral" effect of GPL is now in effect and any thing that uses index.php (if anything) on the serverside would also fall under the GPL. (Note: Note this is a pretty gray area)
However, this is the exact opposite of what the FSF's FAQ on the GPL actually says.
A company is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web site. Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources? (#UnreleasedMods)
The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release the modified sources. It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing those modifications. However, putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly “private” use, so it would be legitimate to require release of the source code in that special case. Developers who wish to address this might want to use the GNU Affero GPL for programs designed for network server use.
Now, if I took these two passages to my corporate lawyer and asked him whether we should use Ext.js with closed-source server-side software even if it might open us up to a lawsuit from Ext.js due to their interpretation of the contract, he would take one look at me and smack me on the head for suggesting that we open ourselves up to something like that.
I think I will shoot the EFF an email asking for an update on that now that GPL3 is trying to accomplish the same thing as the Affero license (anti-Tivoization). That '#UnreleasedMods' section appears to have been written for GPL2.
Comments
Not necessarily. There are many rich client applications (say, for instance, an in-browser multimedia editor or webmail client) whose JS code might be nontrivial and distributed only in minified/obfuscated form, for the company to maintain a competitive advantage over imitators. In that case, those companies would not want to use GPL'ed JS libraries, since they would then be required to provide the JS source code of the entire rest of their client in unminified form.
Also, there are statements like these, from the primary developer of Ext.js which went GPL for a while a few years ago:
However, this is the exact opposite of what the FSF's FAQ on the GPL actually says.
Now, if I took these two passages to my corporate lawyer and asked him whether we should use Ext.js with closed-source server-side software even if it might open us up to a lawsuit from Ext.js due to their interpretation of the contract, he would take one look at me and smack me on the head for suggesting that we open ourselves up to something like that.
EDIT: Sources.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods
http://www.sencha.com/forum/showthread.php?33096-License-Cha...
I think I will shoot the EFF an email asking for an update on that now that GPL3 is trying to accomplish the same thing as the Affero license (anti-Tivoization). That '#UnreleasedMods' section appears to have been written for GPL2.
Please let HN know if you learn anything! There's so much FUD in this space, it's very difficult to know what one can use safely.