views:

131

answers:

1

I want to use one rich text editor to one of my ASP page.I searched in internet and found that there are lot of open source items available like TinyMCE,FCK Editror,nice edit etc.. Can i put the same samples in my website.There is a GNU license associated with it.Can somebody interpret it for me to answer these questions

1 . Can i use it in my website without getting a permission from anyone ?

2 . Do i need maintain the same files always ? Can i make some customization and use it ? Customization is only the CSS changes its going to be.

3 . Do i need to put all the files as it is of the package which downloaded.because my download has samples which supports all languages. Do i need to put all those folders too

From GNU license

" if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."

A: 

It's not clear to me how GPL interacts with Javascript code.

On the face of it, if you include a GPL component in to your system, anything you send along with that component is also GPL.

So, if you have GPL Javascript file, and a personal javascript file, and you use them both on the same page, then, because of the GPLs viral nature, your personal Javascript file is also implicitly licensed under the GPL.

The reasoning behind this is similar to if you took GPL code and included it in to the source code of another source file, your work becomes a derivative of the GPL. Since the only way to load Javascript is to physically include the source code into the running browser, I think the same case applies.

Also, note, that all of your content along with the GPL component, is also GPL. Specifically all of the text and HTML (though not the images -- just the links to the images).

The browser does not distinguish between HTML and Javascript as "Content" vs "code". Rather, the HTML is just a special kind of code that manipulates the DOM.

So, that implies that you can't even have copyright over your own text, the whole mess is GPL.

To be clear, I'm not just referring to your code, your HTML, your whatever. But everything included and rendered on the page. For example, if you wrote a Blog program and SOMEONE ELSE used it for their own work, THEIR posts would be under the GPL. Something that they posted in to the program, their potential award winning masterpiece, is GPL'd. They may think they have copyright, they may even put a copyright notice on their site, but it's in error and conflict with the GPL. The combined "program" that constitutes the web page at the time of publication is a singular derivative Program. Code, Markup, Text and all. How can it not be? It's a single composite source file.

Perhaps it could be finagled around, for example, perhaps the web page can execute and load the text via an XHR and then "publish it", but even then I'd be skeptical.

Unless the component that you're using has a specific exception noted in their license regarding this concept of inclusion, then I personally would avoid a GPL component on my web page. It's a very messy area.

Edit: Just to clarify GNU's position on this.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals

I am writing a website maintenance system (called a “content management system” by some), or some other application which generates web pages from templates. What license should I use for those templates?

Templates are minor enough that it is not worth using copyleft to protect them. It is normally harmless to use copyleft on minor works, but templates are a special case, because they are combined with data provided by users of the application and the combination is distributed. So, we recommend that you license your templates under simple permissive terms.

Some templates make calls into Javascript functions. Since Javascript is often non-trivial, it is worth copylefting. Because the templates will be combined with user data, it's possible that template+user data+Javascript would be considered one work under copyright law. A line needs to be drawn between the Javascript (copylefted), and the user code (usually under incompatible terms).

They off an exception for javascript code that does this:

As a special exception to the GPL, any HTML file which merely makes function calls to this code, and for that purpose includes it by reference shall be deemed a separate work for copyright law purposes. In addition, the copyright holders of this code give you permission to combine this code with free software libraries that are released under the GNU LGPL. You may copy and distribute such a system following the terms of the GNU GPL for this code and the LGPL for the libraries. If you modify this code, you may extend this exception to your version of the code, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version.

But note, the exception is NOT is the standard GPL license and would need to be offered independently by the actual author the JS library.

So, no, it's not inaccurate at all.

Will Hartung
This is all inaccurate if he has no intent to distribute the product to other users.
ceejayoz
Also, the argument that blog posts in a GPLed CMS are GPL is also bullshit. If it were true, I could take any post from any WordPress weblog and use it per the GPL. That's clearly not the case, or sites like CNN, Time, etc. would never consider using WP blogs.
ceejayoz
Surely hosting of the javascript on his web server is effectively distribution of that code?
rjh