I'm confused about some legal aspects of the Premium license.
1.) The Premium license promotional pages say in various places that the license provides "Copyright Freedom" and a "Copyright Guarantee" and you can "protect intellectual property with a Premium license" however I can't see anything in the actual license terms that either defines or guarentees any of these terms. The only reference to copyright is the part that explicitly says "CKSource owns the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Software". So what do these statements actually mean from a legal / practical standpoint?
2.) The same promotional pages say the premium license allows "closed distribution" and use in "closed source" software. I don't understand how Javascript code can be "closed distribution" when non-compiled code must be provided to run on the client machine. If this were bundled with closed source binaries then the free "tri-license" already appears to provide this right under both LGPL and MPL. So again, what does this statement actually mean from a legal / practical standpoint or at least what additional distribution rights are being granted here over the free licenses?
EDIT: Hmmm. I suppose question 1 is covered by this statement in the FAQ: "CKEditor Premium offers flexible license terms that remove the most critical Open Source license restrictions. It gives you the legal peace of mind of correctly abiding by Open Source rules and ensures the integrity of your products." So I'm guessing these "gaurentees" are just assumptions about your ability to comply with their free license terms. If so, I personally find the whole thing a bit disingenious since the only people able to enforce provisions of the free licenses are CKSource themselves. If i've understood the situation correctly it comes across to me as a veiled threat. Even interpreted more favourably it looks like the old "open-source is cancer" theme pushed by Microsoft which kind of conflicts with the "Proud to be Open Source" theme. I guess I should rephrase the original question as "In what way is the integrity of your intellectual property NOT protected by the free licenses?"
I'm not trying to start a free vs commercial license debate, I'm just trying to wrap my head around what specific risks these guarentees are all alluding to / protecting from since I use the free version extensively.
A license basically means all
A license basically means all modifications you do to CKEditor belong to you, so the law will be on your side if anyone appropriates them. The code doesn't have to be "closed" to give you this protection. It's like leaving the door to your house open. With a commercial license, just because the door is open doesn't mean a burglar has the right to come in and steal your stuff. That's what a license does. It protects your property. With Open Source anyone can come in and use your house as they please. I'm sure there's more to be said, but that's the main idea. And let's not forget the 1 year of support.
Customer and Community Manager, CKSource
Follow us on: Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn
If you think you found a bug in CKEditor, read this!
Thanks. Then am I right in
Thanks. Then am I right in assuming that CKSource considers CKEditor a "linked library", for the purposes of LGPL? I would assume the answer is yes but it would be nice to have that confirmed.
EDIT: Actually that seems to be answered by the LGPL itself which defines the "covered work" as "The Library". I guess you can't license something that isn't "a library" under LGPL.
Question 2: The site says: "CKEditor is distributed under the GPL, LGPL and MPL Open Source licenses. This triple copyleft licensing model is flexible and allows you to choose the license that is best suited for your needs.". How is this "choice" made? Does it need to be explicit? If the website/application isn't explicit (or contains no license of its own) would the terms of GPL or LGPL apply or is the "most liberal" license assumed?
EDIT: Again, nevermind. I think I found the answer in the LGPL text, section 1: "You may convey a covered work under sections 3 and 4 of this License without being bound by section 3 of the GNU GPL." So it looks like the LGPL takes precedent in any work covered by both.