Kohana 和 ExtJS 或 JQuery 用于 Intranet
正在建设内网的过程中。我们有很多表格和数据要显示/编辑/审查，我想要最实用的解决方案。
我喜欢 extjs 小部件，因为我只是创建一个内部解决方案，所以我相信许可允许我无需付费即可使用它。
有人对这方面的最佳前进方式有什么意见吗？我真的很感激。
In the process of building an intranet. We have lots of tables and data to show/edit/review and I want the most functional solution.
I like the extjs widgets and since I am only creating an in-house solution, I believe the licensing allows me to use it without paying.
Anyone with some opinion on the best way forward on this? I would really appreciate it.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（3）
Netzpirat 的回答具有误导性。
GNU GPL v3 许可证要求您随软件的任何版本一起分发源代码。基于 Web 的应用程序并不以 GPL 假定的传统方式分发，因此 FSF 修改了许可证以包含“传送”，但它是否真正适用仍存在争议。
如果不需要交通工具，您可以自由回家。
如果转让适用，在这种情况下，该软件仅限于内部员工，从许可的角度来看，他们将代表公司行事，而无权获得源代码。
GPL 专门设计用于允许内部使用 GPL 软件（例如 GCC 套件），无需分发修改，只要修改后的软件不是分发而是保留在内部即可。
总之，您假设您将能够在 GPL v3 许可证下使用该库是完全正确的。
Netzpirat's answer is misleading.
The GNU GPL v3 license requires you to distribute the source code with any release of the software. Web based applications aren't distributed in the traditional way that GPL assumes, so FSF modified the license to include "conveyance", which is debatable whether it ever really applies.
If conveyance does not apply, you're home free.
In the event that conveyance would apply, the software is restricted in this case to inhouse employees and from a licensing point of view, they would be acting for the company and not be entitled to the source code.
The GPL is specifically designed to allow for inhouse usage of GPL'd software -- e. g. the GCC suite, without requiring distribution of modifications so long as the modified software is not distributed, but kept inhouse.
In summary, you're quite right in assuming you'll be able to use the library under the GPL v3 license.
获得三重许可
您必须购买前两种许可证类型，只有 GPL 3 许可框架是免费的。
这并不取决于您构建的是公共应用程序还是内部应用程序，而是取决于您是否将应用程序开源。
因此，当您不想付费时，在内部应用程序中使用它是不合法的。
您可以在Ext JS 许可页面了解更多信息。
Ext JS is tripple licensed under
You have to buy the first two license types, only the GPL 3 licensed framework is for free.
It doesn't depend if you build a public application or an in-house application, it depends whether you make your application open source or not.
So when you don't want to pay, it's not legal to use it in an in-house application.
You can read more at the Ext JS licensing page.
Sencha, Inc. (Ext.js) 现在提供了“传送”的定义，这实际上是 GPL 的一部分，涉及将 Javascript 传送给要执行的用户，在其常见问题页面的标题“Sencha 是什么”下GPL v3 下“传送”的解释？” Sencha 在某种程度上断言：
http://www.sencha.com/legal/open-source-faq/
因为您的用户都会“与原始许可实体有雇员关系”，Sencha 似乎同意 zrvan 的观点，即不根据 GPL 许可整个项目是可以接受的。此外，这只是 Sencha 对产权转让的解释，可能无法反映法院如何解释它。至少您可以放心地知道自己符合作者的定义。
Sencha, Inc. (Ext.js) now provides its definition of "conveyance", which is really the part of the GPL that concerns the delivery of Javascript to a user to be exectued, on its FAQ page under the heading "What is Sencha’s interpretation of “conveyance” under the GPL v3?" In part, Sencha asserts:
http://www.sencha.com/legal/open-source-faq/
Because your users would all have "an employee relationship with the original licensed entity," Sencha seems to agree with zrvan that it is acceptable not to license the entire the project under the GPL. Furthermore, this is only Sencha's interpretation of conveyance, which may not reflect how a court would interpret it. At least you can feel somewhat comfortable knowing that you're in compliance with the author's definition.