JimmyCrackedCorn
Posts: 583
|
| Posted: 10/30/2006, 5:01 PM |
|
Today I spoke via email with the gentleman who owns FCKeditor and he essentially told me that you can use FCKeditor in your project or product, commercial or otherwise, and the only restriction is you must acknowledge the use of FCKeditor and provide a way for your customers to obtain FCKeditor and its complete distribution package including source code.
But you do not need to expose any of your source code nor are you required to purchase a commercial license in order to use FCKeditor in your commercial package.
I have asked him for permission to post our email "conversation" here and I will do that as soon as he OKs it.
_________________
Walter Kempees...you are dearly missed. |
 |
 |
Waspman
Posts: 948
|
| Posted: 10/31/2006, 12:25 AM |
|
Well done!
That's all we need to know
_________________
http://www.waspmedia.co.uk |
|
|
|
Pharlap
|
| Posted: 10/31/2006, 7:45 AM |
|
Just use the product as it is. Too many questions are not necesarry. If codecharge provide you with a product, use it to the fullest potential. Thats the only way you will get your money's worth. If the FCK editor is a free application to use, then don't hesitate. Exploit that opportunity to the fullest extent. Squeeze the orange until it is completely dry. And you know codecharge provides all that opportunity. 
Congrats to yessoftware for yet another superb piece of software. This open ended approach is definately the right way foward in modern computing.
One last thing, if people only took time to read their licence agreement, we would not have the kind of discussion we have had about licensing. If they don;t understand, get a lawyer to do the intepretation.
|
|
|
|
Waspman
Posts: 948
|
| Posted: 10/31/2006, 8:26 AM |
|
Pharlap.
I have read the FCK licence, I'ved used many times.
There seems to be no mention in the CCS documentation to the issues other than how to use it.
I just wanted clarification not a debate!
_________________
http://www.waspmedia.co.uk |
|
|
|
wkempees
Posts: 1679
|
| Posted: 10/31/2006, 10:58 AM |
|
Pharlap,
Quote :
If codecharge provide you with a product, use it to the fullest potential.
Please note that Codecharge nor Yes Software provides us with FCK Editor, they mainly facilitate in the easy use of it.
I just wanted to state that, thank you.
Walter
_________________
Origin: NL, T:GMT+1 (Forumtime +9)
CCS3/4.01.006 PhP, MySQL .Net/InMotion(Vista/XP, XAMPP)
if you liked this info PAYPAL me: http://donate.consultair.eu
|
|
|
|
pharlap
|
| Posted: 10/31/2006, 12:51 PM |
|
Just squeeze the orange dry. Then worry about licensing later. Its free stuff. Check the website. 
|
|
|
|
JimmyCrackedCorn
Posts: 583
|
| Posted: 10/31/2006, 2:12 PM |
|
Quote pharlap:
Just squeeze the orange dry. Then worry about licensing later.
sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Quote Waspman:
I just wanted clarification not a debate!
your request for clarification was spot on. and based on the many comments posted here, many other people also do not fully understand this issue! and I guess I understand why YesSoftware will not/cannot post an official position.
the response I got from FCKeditor removed any concerns my company had about using it in our code. as I said before, I'll post more details if I can.
in the meantime, if anyone has questions about their particular situation I'd encourage you to contact Frederico at FCKeditor directly. he was very nice and replied promptly.
_________________
Walter Kempees...you are dearly missed. |
|
|
|
Benjamin Krajmalnik
|
| Posted: 10/31/2006, 2:15 PM |
|
Jimmy,
Not to be rude, but you are barking up the wrong tree.
FCKEditor is licensed under a dual license, one of which is the LGPL.
You can use it freely - that is what the LGPL allows you to.
Some companies prefer not to use anything that has "GPL" in the licensing
name. For those companies, FCKEditor, as many other companies, have given
an alternate license.
Yes does no need to consider the legal issues for their customers. They
provided support for a 3rd party tool to make it easier for you to adopt it.
If you decide to adopt it, as a developer and a businessman, you are
required to do your due dilligence into the licensing of any component which
you use - period.
I stay away from all of the GPL derivative licenses except for the LGPL. I
prefer BSD, Apache, MIT, and Mozilla licnses, and will opt for a component
using them over any form of GPL.
Yes need not concern itself with how you use a 3rd party component - it is
your responsibility to stay legal.
Do you use MySQL? Is your product Open Source? If not, you are in
violation of their license - and need to get a commercial license.
If you read the LGPL, as long as you supply the full, unaltered FCKeditor
source, including all copyrights, and as long as your license agreement
mentios that it is being used, you are ok.
The CDL is meant for those who want to alter FCKeditor and not provide the
source, who would like to remove the FCKeditor copyrights (so that people
won;t know what they are using), etc.
"JimmyCrackedCorn" <JimmyCrackedCorn@forum.codecharge> wrote in message
news:24543b6d28cf8a@news.codecharge.com...
> Quote peterr:YesSoftware didn't have any other intent than various
> customers
> stating "we use FCkeditor and would like it to be better supported within
> CCS".
> The wish has been fulfilled 
> I'm not sure what concerns me more, that you truly would add support for a
> 3rd-party component without considering legal issues for your customers or
> that
> you won't just state your understanding as to how we can legally use the
> 3rd-party component.
>
> ---------------------------------------
> Sent from YesSoftware forum
> http://forums.codecharge.com/
>
|
|
|
|
Benjamin Krajmalnik
|
| Posted: 10/31/2006, 2:29 PM |
|
Gena,
CodeCharge is very much like Clario in its paradigm.
True, you do not have the granularity in the embed points, and it does not
have a template language the way Clarion does.
That being said, as a fellow Clarion developer, how many people actually
mess with the template language and create their own code templates? Not
that many. The only thing that the lack of such a template language does is
limit native 3rd party components in CCS.
However, if you take the time to look at any of the components (the actions)
you will see that they are XML and Javascript, so there is defintiely a way
to make components. More than anything it is a matter that people - myself
included - have not taken the time to write their components.
My CCS applications use Ajax frameworks, all sorts of rich GUI controls,
graphics. All of this has been done by writing classes and latching them
into the correct embed point.
So bcak to Clarion, remember that the majority of the 3rd party offerings
are not only templates, but the underlying classes. SO you can still write
classes, but will have to instantiate them manually intead of via a
template.
I don't know which language you program in, but Clarion has templates for
ASP, PHP, and there are 3rd party .Net templates.
I have looked at them - and am still much more productive with CodeCharge
thn what I could be with any of them, and COdeCharge is much more
affordable.
|
|
|
|
peterr
Posts: 5971
|
| Posted: 10/31/2006, 2:38 PM |
|
I think that this discussion was going into pretty good direction especially after JimmyCrackedCorn contacted FCKeditor, so let's not start from the beginning
BTW, I thought that it was always clear that FCKeditor can be used for free in every application and in every situation. FCKeditor is simply a free, open source product.
In my mind the only question was evolving around distributing FCKeditor with commercial Web applications that many CCS users may create. I see that posts from Robert, JimmyCrackedCorn, and now Benjamin all claim that FCKeditor can be included and distributed for free in commercial Web applications, possibly with some exceptions.
Today one of our customers also pointed to the Open Office license which is also LGPL and they answer similar questions at:
http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-licensing.html#6
Quote :
6. Why is the LGPL license being used?
As a member of the GPL license family, the GNU LGPL or "Lesser General Public License" will be used for the OpenOffice.org source code. The LGPL has all of the restrictions of the GPL except that you may use the code at compile time without the derivative work becoming a GPL work. This allows the use of the code in proprietary works. The LGPL license is completely compatible with the GPL license.
7. May I take portions of the OpenOffice.org code and use it to extend and improve another application?
Yes. You may freely modify, extend, and improve the OpenOffice.org source code. Modifications to the source must be published.
8. Are OpenOffice.org binaries legal for commercial use?
Yes, you may use OpenOffice.org binaries (the usable application) for commercial use. You may freely distribute it to any user. Please go to our download page to find the latest releases.
It now seems that anyone can do almost anything they want with any LGPL product (without purchasing commercial license)...
_________________
Peter R.
YesSoftware Forums Moderator
For product support please visit http://support.yessoftware.com |
|
|
|
Benjamin Krajmalnik
|
| Posted: 10/31/2006, 2:56 PM |
|
oh please? Whose responsibility is it to make sure you are compliant with
your products?
If you are using MySQL you MAY be legal or not, depending on your project.
If you are using PostgreSQL you are legal - regardless.
It is up tp you to decide whether you must pay fck or not.
If you can live with the limitations of the LGPL, then youre ok.
If you cannot live with thelimitations, then get a CDL.
Yes cannot know what the licensing terms of your software are, and how you
are using CodeCharge.
As a result, they can't really tell you, can they?
For example, here is a snippet of my functions.js:
/************************************************************************************************************
(C) www.dhtmlgoodies.com, October 2005
This is a script from www.dhtmlgoodies.com. You will find this and a lot of
other scripts at our website.
Terms of use:
You are free to use this script as long as the copyright message is kept
intact. However, you may not
redistribute, sell or repost it without our permission.
//*****************************************************************************
// @author Jan Marsch <jama@keks.com>
// @version 0.9 @ 2003-09-27 12:00
// @copyright You might use and distribute this for free as long
// as you keep this header notice.
//*****************************************************************************
By doing this, I am compliant. If I were to remove these, I would be in
violation.
So, if you were to use these same scripts, you could either leave the
notices as I have, or you may have to negotiate with the authors.
|
|
|
|
JayEdgar
Posts: 77
|
| Posted: 10/31/2006, 7:46 PM |
|
Wow. Some folks have made great points, and I acknowledge you, peterr, for your patience. It must be very frustrating to give people what they want, only to receive all of this frustration!
As has been stated numerous times, Yes is simply making it easier to use another product. Yes as a company CANNOT AND MUST NOT (lest they be idiots) give legal direction as to how a product they do not sell can be used. My company manages a nation-wide association for truss manufacturers (a truss is that triangular wood thing you see making a roof on a new house before the plywood is applied). Builders, who buy trusses from our members, often want OUR MEMBERS to be responsible for the product after they sell it! So if a builder installs it incorrectly, they want the component manufacturer to be responsible!
This may sound like an odd parallel to give (and no it's not perfect), but it makes it perfectly clear in my mind.
Respectfully, I suggest that if you have concerns about using FCK that you contact FCK yourself and take responsibility for getting your own answer. Why you would even want to rely on Yes to give you an answer I'm not sure - I wouldn't want to rely on anyone for that - I'd want to know directly from the source.
While I haven't spent much time in the forum, every time I come here I see all the support you give, peterr. Thanks, and keep up the good work. CC kicks ass and has made my life much better.
Warm regards,
Jay
|
|
|
|
mamboBROWN
Posts: 1713
|
| Posted: 10/31/2006, 8:19 PM |
|
How many of us truly understand the different open source licenses and how they work?? Just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
Jan K. van Dalen
|
| Posted: 10/31/2006, 9:29 PM |
|
Data Dict is also missing ...
"Benjamin Krajmalnik" <kraj@illumen.com> wrote in message
news:ei8inq$d4n$1@news.codecharge.com...
> Gena,
>
> CodeCharge is very much like Clario in its paradigm.
> True, you do not have the granularity in the embed points, and it does not
> have a template language the way Clarion does.
>
> That being said, as a fellow Clarion developer, how many people actually
> mess with the template language and create their own code templates? Not
> that many. The only thing that the lack of such a template language does
> is limit native 3rd party components in CCS.
>
> However, if you take the time to look at any of the components (the
> actions) you will see that they are XML and Javascript, so there is
> defintiely a way to make components. More than anything it is a matter
> that people - myself included - have not taken the time to write their
> components.
>
> My CCS applications use Ajax frameworks, all sorts of rich GUI controls,
> graphics. All of this has been done by writing classes and latching them
> into the correct embed point.
>
> So bcak to Clarion, remember that the majority of the 3rd party offerings
> are not only templates, but the underlying classes. SO you can still
> write classes, but will have to instantiate them manually intead of via a
> template.
>
> I don't know which language you program in, but Clarion has templates for
> ASP, PHP, and there are 3rd party .Net templates.
> I have looked at them - and am still much more productive with CodeCharge
> thn what I could be with any of them, and COdeCharge is much more
> affordable.
>
>
|
|
|
|
JimmyCrackedCorn
Posts: 583
|
| Posted: 10/31/2006, 9:59 PM |
|
Quote Benjamin Krajmalnik:
Jimmy,
Not to be rude, but you are barking up the wrong tree.
go back and reread my latest posts. I stopped barking a couple of posts ago!
I think we have established that 1) FCKeditor can be used commercially without a license other than LGPL and 2) YesSoftware cannot give advice on license for 3rd-party products.
_________________
Walter Kempees...you are dearly missed. |
|
|
|
peterr
Posts: 5971
|
| Posted: 10/31/2006, 11:14 PM |
|
Quote :Not to be rude, but you are barking up the wrong tree.
Quote :go back and reread my latest posts. I stopped barking a couple of posts ago!
I hope it's all good now and everybody will be in their best mood by the next visit to the forums
_________________
Peter R.
YesSoftware Forums Moderator
For product support please visit http://support.yessoftware.com |
|
|
|
JimmyCrackedCorn
Posts: 583
|
| Posted: 11/02/2006, 10:15 AM |
|
Below is my conversation with Frederico Caldeira Knabben, owner of FCKeditor. I presented this as 3 separate scenarios and he replied that all three are OK without needing a commercial license. Remember I'm not an attorney nor can I give you any legal advice!
========================
-----------
SCENARIO #1
-----------
We will design a web site for a customer as a custom project and charge market rates for this service. We will integrate FCKeditor into the new web site to provide a way for the end-user to update pages on the site. Since the new web site will be ASP.net we may (or may not) compile the source code for much of the underlying logic of the web site and would not necessarily provide access to this source code to the end-user.
1) Can we use FCKeditor in this example?
2) Do we need to provide the end-user with their own copy of FCKeditor (including source code) in order to be compliant with LGPL?
3) Do we need to provide them with access to our source code too in order to be compliant with LGPL?
4) At what point would we be required to get a CDL to avoid a license infringement?
-----------
SCENARIO #2
-----------
What if we began producing a web application (that uses FCKeditor) where many users would purchase it but it would always be customized and installed by us. Would the answers to the 4 questions above be any different in this scenario?
-----------
SCENARIO #3
-----------
What if we produced a software product (that uses FCKeditor) that is NOT customized and installed by us but simply sold directly to end-users. In this case it is clearly a product we are selling rather than a service.
----------------------------------------------
ANSWER from Frederico Caldeira Knabben
----------------------------------------------
You can use the LGPL in all three cases. It means you must provide access to the FCKeditor source in the case your clients want it (and make this possibility clear to them). You don't need to open the source of your software in any way. Of course all other terms of the LGPL must be respected.
You would opt for the CDL if you don't want to publish the editor code for your client and/or not even make any reference to the FCKeditor project. You would also opt for it if you want to give something back to us :)
========================
_________________
Walter Kempees...you are dearly missed. |
|
|
|
Benjamin Krajmalnik
|
| Posted: 11/04/2006, 6:52 PM |
|
Apache, Mozilla, and MIT are safe.
BSD is the best.
Creative Commons I believe has variations - not used anything on that
license yet.
LGPL is safe.
GPL I stay away from like from fire.
"mamboBROWN" <mamboBROWN@forum.codecharge> wrote in message
news:24548205b75304@news.codecharge.com...
> How many of us truly understand the different open source licenses and how
> they
> work?? Just my two cents.
> ---------------------------------------
> Sent from YesSoftware forum
> http://forums.codecharge.com/
>
|
|
|
|
|
