There are so many of these here-today-gone-tomorrow tools to choose from that I doubt this bizarre licence will affect anybody much.

Whatever this license might be, it most definitely isn't an open source license. The Open Source Definition has at least two clauses (no discrimination against persons or groups, and no discrimination against fields of endeavor) that are. at least according to the article, are violated. Similarly, the Four Freedoms include the right for anyone to run the software, again violated, according to the article, by this license.

I do wish the article's author had been a bit more careful about using the term `open source' for something that is nothing of the kind.

I am curious, but not so curious to read through all the available licensing options with my IANALButILikeToPretendIAm hat on, but if i were to get to the download section without saying I agree to the terms of use (say, for example, I was using a browser with broken JS or CSS support, such as notepad.exe, or i went straight to the download url) and I used the software in accordance with the commercial or lgpl license as documented on their website, have I actually violated anything?

Apart from the DMCA, of course. Everything violates the DMCA.

There was that downloadable dictionary or whatever it was the other year where the license terms were that you were only going to take no more than four flights a year and not own a SUV.

Ok, new levels of randomness from the Internet. Whatever.

But the title of this little Reg' Article is wrong as this is not "Open Source" at all. Let's check the somewhat "papal" definition at http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd. It says:

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

And there you go.

In the name of equality I demand that someone makes a meat-eaters only licence.

I'm sorry. I really do not understand. A script that is politically correct? Suck my what?

There is no ambiguity/judgement in a script. A script does what it is told to do. F**K the hippies.

My scripts (In what ever language) EAT MEAT!!!! (then they have pudding.)

...that developing in JEE is harmful to ones mental wellbeing.

If you take a look at the google code project page (http://code.google.com/p/exttld/) it says on the front page that it's released under the GPL. IANAL, and I have no idea what the GPL's position on this is, but can you apply extra conditions to a piece of code (like they have done) and still claim that it is under the GPL? Obviously their copyright, their rules, but one would think that by licensing something under the GPL, you lose the right to dictate who can and can't use your software.

The code is covered by GPLv3.

Section 8 of GPLv3 includes the following:

"All other non-permissive additional terms* are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term."

* It lists some very specific additions you may make.

Section 10 of GPLv3 includes:

"You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License."

"By downloading ExtTLD from this website, you agree to the following terms and conditions."

Which suggests the additional terms only apply to whoever downloads the code from that site- they're the copyright holders so they're allowed to do this. However, since the actual code is LGPL once it's been given to someone they're free to distribute it without the additional restrictions.

This isn't at all new. Around 1994 I encountered a package which granted a free licence to anyone except for members of the Nevada state legislature and their immediate family members for whom a $50000 licence fee was payable.

Reading between the lines the author was a university student resident in Nevada who didn't at all like the state education policies.

PH because I think she went to Nevada once.

Their licence page at http://extjs.com/license shows 2 licenencing methods:

Open licence (GPL v3 - actually pointing to LGPL) at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

Commercial licence at http://extjs.com/ext-commercial-software-license

I cannot see in the commercial licence anything pertaining to this article... and of course, nothing in the LGPL licence either...

This license will go the same way as that weird clause on Zynaddsubfx (A fine and free synth).

The clause was something like "Please don't use this program to make music that is against God and Jesus Christ".

Thankfully that weird request appears to have disappeared in the latest incarnation of Zynaddsubfx.

(Bill-Z-bub for relevance)

Java is the new Pascal.

Even 20 years ago, Pascal programmers were all known as quiche-eaters. But this is the icing on the cake. :)

Oliver.

As we are animals ourselves, software code is itself an animal product. So nobody can use it...

"Also out is participation in animal-based sports, such as rodeo riding, and transport of animals."

So does this mean Transport for London, UK train companies and airlines can't use it until they abolish cattle class on all services?*

*The word "service" is used loosely here. No I'm not bitter about ****ing engineering works finishing late this morning, I already notified LUL of their farcical use of the word "service".

IANALBILTPIA also. Imagine that. Anyway, assuming that you did not agree to the terms of their license, you would be violating copyright. However, since it is apparent that they've actually distributed it under a GPL, and merely added those terms and conditions to the front, rather than distributing it under a modified GPL, no, you would only be violating the DMCA.

Oh, and at least one other poster might be interested to know that a trademark need not be registered, and given the recent usage of the term, 'Open Source' would almost certainly qualify for being an unregistered trademark, if it were unregistered. Now, I wouldn't be willing to bet that the term is, in fact, unregistered, also given recent usage of the term.

Now, one bit of confusion I do have, as IANAJ, and most specifically, IANTJThatThisCaseWouldGoToIfItWereTakenToTrial, and, of course, said trial hasn't happened yet, is does the fact that the author of the code is attempting to add terms to the GPL modify the effect of the attempt? If that detail doesn't modify the attempt, then, as someone said above, the additional restrictions simply fall off. If it doesn't, then, well, as someone else above mentioned, none of us use it, because humans are animals, and we therefore all produce various animal products - whether software, cars, noxious gasses, or other...

Or does the author consider them animals?

Not that it matters. What sane developer uses Java these days?