'Tofu' license pits open source against meat
What you can - and cannot do - with your software is often determined by the code owner's license. From not using open source APIs with closed-source digital rights management (DRM) to being barred from fiddling with Windows source code, we've seen it all.
Or have we?
ExtTLD, for developing components on the open source Ext JS framework, has been released under a license apparently suited only to vegans, vegetarians and animal rights activists.
Among the terms, ExtTLD cannot be used in connection with the development and manufacture of products that involve animal testing, products whose ingredients might come from testing on animals or genetically modified organisms involving animal genes.
That means you can't be involved in testing and neither can your products or services.
"Animal product" in this case is defined as a whole cornucopia of items spanning meat, seafood, honey, fur, silk and eggs.
Also out is participation in animal-based sports, such as rodeo riding, and transport of animals - so there go the haulage sectors and, possibly, anybody developing sat-nav systems and applications.
Are birds and fish exempt?
Or does the author consider them animals?
Not that it matters. What sane developer uses Java these days?
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...
TfL et al
"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".