“Due to the number of libraries with varying licences used in the creation of this software, it is now licensed under all licenses known to ensure maximum compatibility and maximum seizure proclivity.”
So if I’m using the jQuery library, which is GPL/MIT licensed (depending on which is a better fit) and another piece of software (say Apache licensed), I can select the MIT license to distribute it with because they are more compatible.
Unless of course, I’m starting with a GPL licensed library first (e.g. ExtJS which is technically GPL v3), but I still won’t be able to distribute any modifications to the core under the ISC, because that may be too “free”.
But I won’t be able to distribute under the ISC because the it’s most certainly incompatible with the GPL (in all three thousand variations).
Although, according to the ExtJS license explanation…
We want people building extensions, developer toolkits and frameworks, language packs and themes for Ext libraries to be able to publicly distribute them under less restrictive license terms despite the fact that version 3 of the GNU General Public License (the “GPL”) may require them to be licensed under the GPL.
This Exception does not grant usage or distribution of any Ext development library under a license other the GPL and cannot be applied to end-user applications. For applications, please refer to the Open Source License Exception for Applications.
That’s great! I can at least license the rest of the software under the ISC, but leave the ExtJS portion under GPL.
But the list of execeptions…
Open Source License List
License name Version(s)/Copyright Date Academic Free License 2.0 Apache Software License 2.0 Apple Public Source License 2.0 Artistic license From Perl 5.8.0 BSD license “July 22 1999” Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) 1.0 Common Public License 1.0 Eclipse Public License 1.0 Educational Community License 2.0 GNU General Public License (GPL) 2.0 GNU Library or “Lesser” General Public License (LGPL) 3.0 Jabber Open Source License 1.0 MIT License (As listed in file MIT-License.txt) – Mozilla Public License (MPL) 1.0/1.1 Open Software License 2.0 OpenSSL license (with original SSLeay license) “2003” (“1998”) PHP License 3.0 Python license (CNRI Python License) – Python Software Foundation License 2.1.1 Sleepycat License “1999” University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License – W3C License “2001” X11 License “2001” Zlib/libpng License – Zope Public License 2.0
…Doesn’t include the ISC, which is a more permissive form of the 1999 BSD which is identical to the current FreeBSD license.
I’ll have to build the core separately and license it under the ISC.
Build the control panels seperately and license it MIT.
Add the interface components (if ExtJS) and license those GPL v39773232.
And lastly, put “Everything else” in the Public Domain.
Does anyone still not get that multiple licenses on the same project only allow further fragmentation in the Open Source community?
I’ll leave you to sort this whole thing out. I’ll be busy vacuuming my brains off the floor after they melted out of my ears…
I think I finally understand what Shannon was talking about…