Software Licensing

[Renegade]

I'm doing a fair bit of web work right now, and ended back up at the CKEditor site, where I checked the license:

CKEditor is distributed under the GPL, LGPL and MPL open source licenses. This triple copyleft licensing model avoids incompatibility with other open source licenses. These Open Source licenses are specially indicated for:

    * Integrating CKEditor into Open Source software;
    * Personal and educational use of CKEditor;
    * Integrating CKEditor in commercial software, taking care of satisfying the Open Source licenses terms, while not able or interested on supporting CKEditor and its development.

Hahahaha~! I like how they put that there. Very nice.

jab jab

In any event, it's a kick ass RTE.

[mahesh2k]

What's so special about MPL that i see many softwares are adding it to their license model these days ?

[Renegade]

What's so special about MPL that i see many softwares are adding it to their license model these days ?

It's similar to BSD or Ms-PL. It makes the component/library usable in closed-source or proprietary software.

[mwb1100]

What's so special about MPL that i see many softwares are adding it to their license model these days ?

It's similar to BSD or Ms-PL. It makes the component/library usable in closed-source or proprietary software.

However, it's different than BSD (I'm not familiar enough with Ms-PL to comment on it) in that if you modify the MPL software, you have to make the source code for those modifications available.  From the MPL FAQ:

The MPL has a limited amount of 'copyleft' - more copyleft than the BSD family of licenses, which have no copyleft at all, but less than the LGPL or the GPL.

As I understand it, merely linking MPL code to your code doesn't 'infect' it like it would with GPL code (at least that's my understanding).

[f0dder]

As I understand it, merely linking MPL code to your code doesn't 'infect' it like it would with GPL code (at least that's my understanding).

Sounds pretty darn reasonable & pragmatic to me