views:

295

answers:

3

We want to use either the FCK/CKeditor or the TinyMCE editor in our CRM application. We charge the customer use of the CRM system which is bespoke to use and them. I noticed both the editors have GPL and LGPL licenses. However CKEditor has a Closed License too in addition to the LGPL.

My questions are: 1) Although we don't sell our code or binaries, we provide software as a hosted service, can we use LGPL licenses?

2) Why does CKEditor provide LGPL and Closed licenses if the LGPL should make it easy for any proprietary software to use it? Is it only for systems which are sold as a binary where the product is for example physically installed as an .exe?

A: 

LPGL-licensed software can be used in any situation, even commercial software. However, you're still expected to submit any changes you make to the code back to the original developer.

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.php

It looks like the Closed license of CKEditor is designed for those companies that don't want to do that, or can't, for whatever reason.

Stephen Orr
No you aren't. It's perfectly legal to make private changes, and even when you do change and redistribute you don't have to send anything to the original developer.
David Thornley
Obviously my understanding of the LGPL is faulty then, because I thought that was the case. Which license am I thinking of then?
Stephen Orr
The only license I ever heard of that had any provisions even remotely like that was Microsoft's old "Shared Source" license.
T.E.D.
@T.E.D: the artistic license has a similar clause, see 4.a @ http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-2.0.php
André Caron
@Stepehn Orr: yes, your understanding is faulty. I can't believe you actually linked to the text and made a false statement about what it contains.
André Caron
+1  A: 

If you don't distribute your source or binaries, you have no problems with the LGPL or GPL. (You would with the Affero GPL and variants.)

If you read the LGPL, you'll find that there are requirements. If you distribute LGPLed software, you're required to distribute source on request, and you have to allow the recipient to relink against his or her own version of the library. In some cases, this may be awkward (for example, if you don't want to provide the library as a DLL), and some places just don't like any sort of copyleft on the software they use. Some companies may prefer paying for a proprietary license as an option.

David Thornley
A: 

Yes. The gist of the LGPL is that you can link to LGPL code from proprietary code without affecting the licensing of your proprietary code (linking your code to GPL code requires licensing your code as GPL). If you modify the LGPL code, you must make the source of the modifcations available upon request.

As for offering a closed license, some of their customers may want to be able to customize the licensed code without worrying about sharing the changes.

Andrew Medico
LGPL - you can link *at run time* with your proprietary code.
phkahler
The LGPL imposes stroger restrictions than that. In addition to providing the source to the LGPL covered library (including any modifications), you must provide your proprietary code in a form that allows the end user to modify the LGPL code, re-compile it AND re-link it with the proprietary code.
Stephen C. Steel
@phkahler Run time linking with LGPL code is the easiest and most common way of complying with the LGPL, but it is not the only way. Static linking is fine as long as you provide the proprietary code an a form that allows end-users to re-link with a modified version of the LGPL code. Distributing a partially linked object file that can be linked with the LGPL code to make an executable also meets the LGPL requirements.
Stephen C. Steel

related questions