<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>https://docs-old.ckeditor.com/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=FCKeditor_3.x%2FDesign_and_Architecture%2FLicense</id>
		<title>FCKeditor 3.x/Design and Architecture/License - Revision history</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://docs-old.ckeditor.com/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=FCKeditor_3.x%2FDesign_and_Architecture%2FLicense"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://docs-old.ckeditor.com/index.php?title=FCKeditor_3.x/Design_and_Architecture/License&amp;action=history"/>
		<updated>2026-10-12T13:49:05Z</updated>
		<subtitle>Revision history for this page on the wiki</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.29.1</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>https://docs-old.ckeditor.com/index.php?title=FCKeditor_3.x/Design_and_Architecture/License&amp;diff=1829&amp;oldid=prev</id>
		<title>Fredck: New page: == Open Source Licenses ==  Talking about an Open Source project, it makes a lot of sense sticking to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft copyleft] licenses. It makes our code accessibl...</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://docs-old.ckeditor.com/index.php?title=FCKeditor_3.x/Design_and_Architecture/License&amp;diff=1829&amp;oldid=prev"/>
				<updated>2008-01-19T23:36:51Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;New page: == Open Source Licenses ==  Talking about an Open Source project, it makes a lot of sense sticking to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft copyleft] licenses. It makes our code accessibl...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;New page&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div&gt;== Open Source Licenses ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Talking about an Open Source project, it makes a lot of sense sticking to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft copyleft] licenses. It makes our code accessible to a broad range of individuals and companies, and promotes the sense of maintaining that code still accessible to others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Licenses are nothing more than legal instruments. Each standard Open Source license has its own features and limitations. So, to avoid conflicts, we'll keep licensing our code under the well known triple license model including these options:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html GNU General Public License] Version 2 or later (the &amp;quot;'''GPL'''&amp;quot;)&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html GNU Lesser General Public License] Version 2.1 or later (the &amp;quot;'''LGPL'''&amp;quot;)&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html Mozilla Public License] Version 1.1 or later (the &amp;quot;'''MPL'''&amp;quot;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Commercial License ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We'll continue distributing our code under the Closed Distribution License (the &amp;quot;'''CDL'''&amp;quot;). There are two important motivations for this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Open Source licenses don't fit well for all companies needs. They want to have more freedom and legal piece of mind when incorporating third party software in their business.&lt;br /&gt;
* Financial support for the project. There is no shame for a company to support the software they use everyday.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Fredck</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed>