New Licensing

[FredCK]

A new license must be created to fix some issues with the current LGPL/CDL system:

• LGPL is incompatible with some Open Source licenses. Probably a triple OS license support would fix this issue (GPL/LGPL/MPL).

• Incorporate all licenses in a single license term, including the CDL.

• We must continue under a copyleft license, leaving the CDL as the unique non-copyleft license.

• Limit the CDL validity to avoid it being used on systems that could offer a way to bypass us, like Component Bundles or development runtime platforms.

• There are people out there abusing of our code (including commercial software). Find a way to enforce our rights, leaving abuses in a dangerous situation.

[FredCK]

Incorporate all licenses in a single license term, including the CDL.

It seams that it would sound a little bit strange and out of the OSS transparency ideologies (which we'll be walking towards during this year).

So, I'm coming with a proposal solution for the triple license scheme.

All files would have the header replaced with the following:

FCKeditor - The text editor for Internet - http://www.fckeditor.net
Copyright (C) 2003-2007 Frederico Caldeira Knabben

--- BEGIN LICENSE ---

Licensed under the terms of any one, but only one, of the following 
licenses at your choice:

 - GNU General Public License Version 2 or later (the "GPL")
   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

 - GNU Lesser General Public License Version 2.1 or later (the "LGPL")
   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

 - Mozilla Public License Version 1.1 or later (the "MPL")
   http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html

If you wish to allow use of your version of this file under the terms
of exclusively one of the GPL, the LGPL or the MPL, indicate your
decision by deleting this license provisions and replace them with the
notice and other provisions required by the GPL, the LGPL or the MPL.
If you do not delete this license provisions, a recipient may use your
version of this file under the terms of any one of the GPL, the LGPL 
or the MPL.

--- END LICENSE ---

File Name: xxxxxxxx.xxx
  File description blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
  blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

File Authors:
  Person Name (e-mail or web address)

The CDL will continue as a special case handled separately, and no references to it will be done in the editor source.

Does anyone see any problem with the above header text or even with the proposed implementation?

[alfonsoml]

First of all, I'm not a lawyer and even my English is very bad and I don't like at all the legal jargon.

I'm not sure about this part:

Licensed under the terms of any one, but only one, of the following 
licenses at your choice:

It sounds a little strange at first read, but now after re-reading I think that the aim is to say: you can use it as GPL or MPL of LGPL but you can't make your own mix and choose the parts that you like of each license.

And I have heard also people discussing about the GPL and the forthcoming GPL 3, but I don't know at all what that means

Just for reference, Firefox is also tri-licensed and here's a sample from one of the files:

/* -*- Mode: C++; tab-width: 2; indent-tabs-mode: nil; c-basic-offset: 2 -*-
 *
 * ***** BEGIN LICENSE BLOCK *****
 * Version: MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1
 *
 * The contents of this file are subject to the Mozilla Public License Version
 * 1.1 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
 * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
 * http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/
 *
 * Software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" basis,
 * WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License
 * for the specific language governing rights and limitations under the
 * License.
 *
 * The Original Code is mozilla.org code.
 *
 * The Initial Developer of the Original Code is
 * Netscape Communications Corporation.
 * Portions created by the Initial Developer are Copyright (C) 1998
 * the Initial Developer. All Rights Reserved.
 *
 * Contributor(s):
 *   Javier Delgadillo <javi@netscape.com>
 *
 * Alternatively, the contents of this file may be used under the terms of
 * either the GNU General Public License Version 2 or later (the "GPL"), or
 * the GNU Lesser General Public License Version 2.1 or later (the "LGPL"),
 * in which case the provisions of the GPL or the LGPL are applicable instead
 * of those above. If you wish to allow use of your version of this file only
 * under the terms of either the GPL or the LGPL, and not to allow others to
 * use your version of this file under the terms of the MPL, indicate your
 * decision by deleting the provisions above and replace them with the notice
 * and other provisions required by the GPL or the LGPL. If you do not delete
 * the provisions above, a recipient may use your version of this file under
 * the terms of any one of the MPL, the GPL or the LGPL.
 *
 * ***** END LICENSE BLOCK ***** */

Reading carefully it seems that both texts aim to say the same thing, but as I say I don't know if they do really say the same thing. I don't really know what more to say about it.

[FredCK]

Replying to alfonsoml:

Thanks for your comments Alfonso.

First of all, I'm not a lawyer and even my English is very bad and I don't like at all the legal jargon.

I don't like it too... but I've been doing an intensive (and boring) self-learning lately. There are many interesting things in legal aspects... but overall, still boring.

{{{ Licensed under the terms of any one, but only one, of the following licenses at your choice: }}} It sounds a little strange at first read.

I found it too... maybe the correct way is "Licensed under the terms of any, but only one, of the following licenses at your choice"... but I'm still unsure. I'll be checking alternatives.

And I have heard also people discussing about the GPL and the forthcoming GPL 3, but I don't know at all what that means

The current GPL 2 is not a good license... it is just a popular license. This is why we have chosen it. The GPL 3 is a tentative to make the GPL a modern and good license.

Just for reference, Firefox is also tri-licensed

Actually, we are inspired on it. I just don't want to say that we are licensing it under the terms of the MPL and alternatively, under the GPL or LGPL.

Thanks again Alfonso... I just wanted to be sure you were aware of what is going on behind the scenes.

[FredCK]

Relicensed under the GPL / LGPL / MPL. Changes committed to the SVN.