'A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.'

In other words, your MIT library is an independent work and does not limit the rights imparted by the other pieces (namely, the GPL pieces). This is somewhat important since you (presumably) don't own the copyright to that MIT work and so your options for relicensing it are limited.

Meanwhile, your code is a direct, derivative work of the GPL code and at a minimum, must be made available under the GPL. You can additionally release under other licenses, provided that those licenses do not conflict with the GPL. A "public domain" non-license might work. And again, you must always offer a GPL option.

I don't know how the AGPL applies here. I would guess that it's pretty much the same except you acquire those above GPL rights just by consuming the output of the code (e.g. visiting the webpage).

Using Concord on your site? Offer a link to the source. Modify it to work better with a framework? Offer that modification too. Build an entire product off of it? Well, be prepared to release the source to that product under GPL as well. If you don't like those terms, feel free to start from scratch and not freeload off the original authors who were kind enough to share source with you in the first place.

I don't understand how people can pay good money for things like game engines, then turn around and think that OSS doesn't have a price too, or get upset when they are asked to pay it. You just end up paying back to the community instead of into a company's coffers.

I also think that a license which is too complicated for anyone to actually understand is simply too flawed to serve it's purpose, which was the original point of my post. This is completely separate from people not giving back to open source.

The GPL is less suitable for this because means that all of your code for the page(s) using Concord have to be GPL-compatible. Presumably, this includes Urchin.

GPL seems like overkill given your goal. It will be limited to a niche of either fully open source public applications or completely private/internal applications.

However, if you incorporate Concord into a product you sell, then you either need to provide the source per the provisions of the GPL, or else negotiate a different license from Winer.

Basically, I want people to know that when they use binary-only modules, it's THEIR problem. I want people to know that in their bones, and I want it shouted out from the rooftops. I want people to wake up in a cold sweat every once in a while if they use binary-only modules. -- Linus Torvalds

As a Linux user (and previous developer) I can only commend these positions. I don't care about hardware companies' "intellectual property", all I want is to pay for hardware and have good drivers that don't wreak havoc with my system.

The GPL sucks, full stop.

[1] http://www.law.washington.edu/casrip/license/

It's not practical and it's not free. That's why I'd never consider releasing software under it.

I will agree that it is complicated but that's a result of years of companies abusing loopholes and the nature of trying to cover every conceivable scenario. It's an old codebase but still the best we have.

Practicality is never the consideration of an idealist and the GPL is definitely the product of an idealist. RMS has often appeared like a crazy old man but as time passes, he seems to be proven right more often than wrong. A consequence of idealism and the march of progress, maybe.

You're of course well within your rights to choose a different way but your characterization of the GPL not being about freedom is a bit off the mark.

It's a document that gives and preserves rights of the end user, which include the right to the source code and the right to modify and distribute.

How could it possibly 'take away' rights? Any rights not in the licence didn't exist in the first place and thus can't be 'taken away'.

A licence is a set of conditions which a code author/owner sets for using his/her code, any 'rights' you have to their code is that of the conditions they set.

If a developer chooses GPL for their code then those are the rights to which you can use their code, no rights have been 'taken away from you' at all, it's not your code.

And it's certainly practical, which I'm certain is the reason that it's the most used open source licence.

One particular aspect which makes it practical from a developer standpoint is that if they release their code under GPL they have the right to source code modifications made to their code as end users of such modifications.

There is no BEST licence, the licence profileration is a direct consequence of our different needs and values.

Sure, anything can be confusing. A door nob is surely confusing to some people, especially if they never seen one before. But a door nob is not inherently confusing, and intellectually honest people would not describe it as such.

Let me ask, what is confusing about a license that say:

  You can and may do anything with this code, so long you allow others to do the same,
  and to any modified version you might create.

To quote the license:

  To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or
  asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if
  you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to
  respect the freedom of others.

If someone had specific questions about how she could build on this, surely she would just reach out to Dave and have a conversation?

That has been the interpretation of the guys distributing extjs.