First, yes, I understand that you are not a lawyer and that you cannot give me legal advice. I swear I will not hold you accountable for any responses you may give, yada, yada, yada, etc, etc, etc.
Next, general details of my potential application:
- Ext JS open source (GPL V3) app running all client-side code. THE CLIENT from here on.
- ASP.NET MVC application running the server-side code. THE SERVER from here on.
- 3rd party / open-source / server-side framework for interfacing between previous two systems. THE INTERFACE from here on. Its licensing is highly permissive.
Is THE SERVER "contaminated" by the license of THE CLIENT?
There are a few variables to consider here:
- Both THE SERVER and THE INTERFACE will be generating JSON to be directly used by THE CLIENT.
- All systems are currently designed to be served from the same server, same IIS process; however, it would be easy enough to separate all server-side code and all client-side code.
- Probably more (...?)
If you think that, "yes, given this arrangement of sub-systems, THE SERVER will have to be made available as GPL V3 code," would it be possible to completely separate the two by declaring THE CLIENT as an open source UI where 3rd party servers could be developed by whomever for whatever platform? In this case, I would just happen to be the developer of the first client, which happens to be an ASP.NET-based one?
Now a few specifics: I am an independent developer who would prefer to keep my options open. I currently have a 4.x commercial license for Sencha Ext JS, which was purchased at a very reasonable price. It is, at this point, out-dated; Ext JS 6.0.0 came out today after all. I do, however, refuse to purchase their licenses according to their new, absurd policies (e.g. 5 license minimum @ $4K-7K) plus support subscriptions to get their bug fixes!
Any thoughts? Well, besides, "ditch Sencha."