First, I'd like to say that CKEditor is awesome. I feel bad introducing myself on CKSource with a complaint, but I think it's a fairly serious one.
The file LICENSE.html for the FLOSS version of CKEditor contains the following text:
My reading of this paragraph suggests that if I accept CKEditor under the GPL only and make modifications to it, anyone can reuse my changes under any of the three licenses. This implies that even though I accepted CKEditor under the GPL and distributed my modified version under the GPL only, someone else can reuse my modification under, e.g., the LGPL.
In short, as far as I can tell, this text claims that I do not have the right to narrow the number of licenses that apply to my modified version, which is completely inconsistent with my understanding of FLOSS multi-licensing. In my understanding, I can choose to accept the software under as many or as few licenses as I want (not less than one and not more than there were originally, obviously) from the original license options and, if I choose, release any changes I make under a narrowed subset of those licenses. I have the right to say, "No thanks, I don't want my changes available under the LGPL; because I have a choice of which licenses I accept the original CKEditor code under, I'll only accept it under the GPL and MPL and release my changes under those licenses only."
Am I complete misreading the paragraph? Does CKEditor do something unusual in terms of how it implements multi-licensing? If this text stipulates something beyond the scope of the original licenses (e.g. it forces all future versions to be released under all three licenses) I think should be made more clear that this is an additional restriction that is levied on top of the three licenses (and as such, possibly violates the GPL, but I'm not a lawyer).
This text is profoundly troubling to me as a developer who might create code based on CKEditor, so I would appreciate any clarification from the developers.
The file LICENSE.html for the FLOSS version of CKEditor contains the following text:
You are not required to, but if you want to explicitly declare the license you have chosen to be bound to when using, reproducing, modifying and distributing this software, just include a text file titled "LEGAL" in your version of this software, indicating your license choice. In any case, your choice will not restrict any recipient of your version of this software to use, reproduce, modify and distribute this software under any of the above licenses.(emphasis mine)
My reading of this paragraph suggests that if I accept CKEditor under the GPL only and make modifications to it, anyone can reuse my changes under any of the three licenses. This implies that even though I accepted CKEditor under the GPL and distributed my modified version under the GPL only, someone else can reuse my modification under, e.g., the LGPL.
In short, as far as I can tell, this text claims that I do not have the right to narrow the number of licenses that apply to my modified version, which is completely inconsistent with my understanding of FLOSS multi-licensing. In my understanding, I can choose to accept the software under as many or as few licenses as I want (not less than one and not more than there were originally, obviously) from the original license options and, if I choose, release any changes I make under a narrowed subset of those licenses. I have the right to say, "No thanks, I don't want my changes available under the LGPL; because I have a choice of which licenses I accept the original CKEditor code under, I'll only accept it under the GPL and MPL and release my changes under those licenses only."
Am I complete misreading the paragraph? Does CKEditor do something unusual in terms of how it implements multi-licensing? If this text stipulates something beyond the scope of the original licenses (e.g. it forces all future versions to be released under all three licenses) I think should be made more clear that this is an additional restriction that is levied on top of the three licenses (and as such, possibly violates the GPL, but I'm not a lawyer).
This text is profoundly troubling to me as a developer who might create code based on CKEditor, so I would appreciate any clarification from the developers.
Re: Licensing concern
If I recall it well, the "In any case, your choice will not restrict..." paragraph came with the intend to tell that recipients of your version of the software will not loose their rights over the ORIGINAL version of it.
Firstly, this statement is not needed, because that's just obvious. Second, the way it's said there is wrong and have a different meaning (brilliantly described by yourself).
I think that the best we can do here is simply delete that paragraph. We'll do that soon, updating our downloadables accordingly.
Thanks for the precise advice.
Frederico Knabben
CKEditor Project Lead and CKSource Owner
--
Follow us on: Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | LinkedIn