12 ms·

TinyMCE (also) moving from MIT to GPL

77 points by _pferreir_ 2y ago

_pferreir_ 2y ago
TinyMCE is switching to a licensing model akin to CKeditor's.
immibis 2y ago
I hope Redis's license being changed makes more people wake up to the reality of the differences between copyleft and permissive. Permissive is, in practice, public domain. Any corporation can take your code and use it as closed-source. All they have to do is credit your name somewhere deep in the documentation, a completely meaningless gesture. They also can't sue you for copying "their" library. But that's about it.
- Mystery-Machine 2y ago
  Can you please clarify what's the difference between the two?
  - tlocke 2y ago
    The way I think of it is that with permissive licences the freedoms can be removed from the code, but with copyleft the freedoms can't be removed from the code. By freedoms I mean the freedom to study the source code, to run it for whatever purpose you want, to make modifications and to share the code with other people.
  - TheChaplain 2y ago
    GPL forces you to always supply the source code but only if you distribute the application. E.g. if you fork Nano and sell or make binaries available for download for free, people have the right to ask you for the source code. If you don't distribute it in any form, then you don't need to.[1] With MIT you can fork, distribute and people can't demand anything. [1]: Contrary to popular misinformation, modified GPL software can be used by businesses as long as it is not distributed.
    - worthless-trash 2y ago
      > people have the right to ask you for the source code. People you distributed binaries to have a right to the source code via the same method that the binaries are provided in. Or at least that was my understanding.
      - immibis 2y ago
        If it's a non-commercial affair, you can give them a "written offer valid for at least 3 years" and then you don't have to actually supply it unless someone asks. In practice, this isn't a very good option to take. Much better to provide it on a "network server" as they were called at the time the license was written.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        worthless-trash 2y ago
        This sounds like a very sane option to take, id like it to be codified in a license. Eternal availability sounds like a real hassle to maintain.
        immibis 2y ago
        It is codified...
        worthless-trash 2y ago
        You're right! thanks for the education. "b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge."
- lifthrasiir 2y ago
  I have also personally moved from non-PD permissive licenses for my own works, preferring an explicit public domain dedication or equivalent, and occasionally using a full copyleft license. I do know they are technically different (one important aspect being the patent clause), but the value added by those permissive licenses is not really significant.
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  To me, this is, over the long-term, a self-solving problem. Especially for simpler projects. It took a decade for GNU/Linux to get to the point where CTOs would throw it in the same category as commercial UNIXes, but when that happened, well... when was the last time you logged into a brand-spankin'-new HP-UX machine? And that was an operating system, one of the more ambitious types of software projects. Redis is trading short-term profit for their sustainability as a business. There are already forks that are FOSS; there will be more. Cloud service providers have every incentive to not have to pass on Redis license fees to the customer. TL;DR: you can't effectively compete over the long-term with the FOSS branches off the trunk that your now-closed-source software branches from.
  - immibis 2y ago
    > There are already forks that are FOSS. FWIW Redis is still FOSS since SSPL is FOSS - very strong copyleft. It's not a proprietary license, it's rather "more AGPL than AGPL." Even if [the OSI](https://opensource.org/sponsors https://opensource.org/sponsors) disagrees.
    - lenerdenator 2y ago
      If I'm understanding the changes Redis made, it's FOSS until you decide you want to use their server to create a cloud service offering. Am I mistaken?
      - immibis 2y ago
        It still is, you just have to publish the whole derived work that you created under the SSPL - not just the source to create redis.exe but also the whole source to create the backend of myhostedredisservice.com
      - Sander_Marechal 2y ago
        Then it isn't FOSS, because it violates freedom 0: The freedom to run the program as you wish
MatthiasPortzel 2y ago
In my opinion it’s a shame that the GPL is so clearly designed for licensing applications written in C being run by end users. When evaluated on that basis, it makes a lot of sense as a license. But there’s a lot of confusion around the license because it’s not clear how these concepts transfer to interpreted languages. The GNU FAQ for determining if two programs have been combined into a derived works asks “if the modules are included in the same executable file” and “if modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space.” If I’m writing a JavaScript library or a server-side framework or even bare metal microcontroller code, I’m not going to use the GPL, just because it’s not at all obvious how to apply the license.
- consp 2y ago
  > if modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space. How does this not apply to javascript?
  - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
    That happens after distribution of "unlinked" code. GPL's copyleft doesn't apply to binaries that aren't distributed.
    - panzi 2y ago
      But would bundled and minified JavaScript not be very much like a binary? And isn't it distributed every time someone opens the web page?
- belorn 2y ago
  Programs written in C is a bit more obvious in how tightly coupled a program is to their libraries. It takes quite a lot of intention, work and design to make a C program independent of their library dependencies. If you remove a library and the work is completely inoperative and will practically never function without reapply the library, then the legal argument that they are independent and separate works start to loose strength. For programs written in interpreted languages, it is a bit less obvious how tightly coupled a program is to their libraries. It depend a lot on the design, intended use and the environment. Some programs regardless of language is going to be heavy dependent and based on a specific library, rather than a generic API for which any library could implement. The more the program incorporates aspects of the library as part of the program, the stronger the argument is for derivative status.
ssddanbrown 2y ago
TinyMCE provided a bit more information about this change in a GitHub discussion thread here: https://github.com/tinymce/tinymce/discussions/9496 https://github.com/tinymce/tinymce/discussions/9496 As I posted there, this directly affects my open source project which is heavily tied to TinyMCE so I may end up forking, and reducing down to what my project needs to reduce maintenance scope & burden. TinyMCE have been jumping around with their licensing. They were under LGPL, with some (what I believe were) misleading guidance into meeting the LGPL (they specified rules about keeping specific branding elements). They then jumped to MIT, and since moved some of the open plugins to their commercial offering. Now they're making this change.
- Y_Y 2y ago
  Would it be out of the question to relicense your project to GPL? I guess you want to allow people to use your work without releasing their source, but that's at odds with the fact that TinyMCE doesn't want that any more and you presumably rely on their work too. I certainly don't want to reopen any tired debates, I'm just interested in what the perspective of a downstream developer is like here.
  - ssddanbrown 2y ago
    That's definitely an option, but I originally chose the MIT due to the simplicity & low friction/requirement for users, and for me it'd be a shame to change that, especially as it could impact users that have been using my software over the last 8 years. While I've gained a lot of understand & respect for GPL licenses over the years of being involved in open source, I'd still have a preference for MIT for this particular project for the reasons I originally chose it. Feels a bit annoying to change the licensing (and philosophy) of my project based upon a change from a dependency (but to be clear I respect their right to change license, and the value they've provided us to this point). Additionally, due to their licensing changes/hijinks over the years, I'm not overly confident there wouldn't be more changes ahead in favour of proprietary enterprise offerings.
    - c0l0 2y ago
Exuma 2y ago
What must one do on their project for GPL
donatj 2y ago
There are 219 contributors going back over a decade. Did they all either consent to the repeated license changes or sign away their rights with an CLA? You can’t just relicense contributions willy-nilly - without an CLA or similar agreement assigning ownership, contributions retain copyright of their original author.
- alwayslikethis 2y ago
  The general understanding is you can relicense MIT to GPL, but not the other way around. MIT has no requirement that you use the same license, only that the permission and attribution notice remains.
- depr 2y ago
  Do you mean CLA? I said the same thing about the recent Redis change. Apparently, the old contributions are still under the old license, and new contributions will be GPL. Because the old license is MIT, those contributions can be incorporated in the new GPL version. So there the old contributions are not relicensed and there is no need for it. If the old license were GPL and they wanted to move to e.g. BUSL, then they would have to ask all the contributors because GPL doesn't allow that.
  - draven 2y ago
    But then they will sell you a license to use the whole project including their GPL bits. It's legal, but it's kind of a bait and switch and can be perceived negatively by the community. It's similar to what was done to Akka.
  - rapnie 2y ago
    Drew Devault forked Redis, made the fork LGPL, then got so many questions that he created a fun little licensing quiz: https://fosstodon.org/@drewdevault/112156829031615403 https://fosstodon.org/@drewdevault/112156829031615403
    - Denvercoder9 2y ago
      Can anyone explain why the answer to the second question (https://fosstodon.org/@drewdevault/112156847020462949 https://fosstodon.org/@drewdevault/112156847020462949) is "no"? The MIT license grants all the rights that the GPL requires to be granted for derivative works (it is GPL-compatible). Is the problem here just that they don't distribute or offer the source code of the GPL-licensed library along with the pre-built binaries?
tlocke 2y ago
For my projects I prefer a permissive licence, specifically the MIT No Attribution Licence. People argue that corporations will just take your code and make it proprietary. They might, but an internal fork like that means that it's difficult to benefit from improvements in the original project. So in my experience corporations don't create an internal fork, they use the code as it is. Then if they find a bug for example they will contribute the fix to the project rather than forking, because it's the easiest option. So in other words, corporations are more likely to use code that's licensed under a permissive licence, and so they're more likely to contribute, simply out of their own self interest.
dirkc 2y ago
Compared to other projects moving to their own weird licenses, GPL2+ isn't the worst outcome. It's interesting to see how the sentiment around open source is changing in the last few years
butz 2y ago
What does the change mean if we have TinyMCE editor in our internal CMS tool and we plan on upgrading to version 7?
- teddyh 2y ago
  Probably nothing. An internal tool is not “distributed”, right?
lewisjoe 2y ago
Recently I was shocked when I came to know that both CKeditor and TinyMCE are now owned by the same parent company. The acquisition has happened silently, that many people think TinyMCE and CKEditor are different competing companies. Given that they are from the same governing body, it's no surprise they want to make TinyMCE adopt CKEditor's licensing path as well.
yencabulator 2y ago
I needed a WYSIWYG web editor specifically for HTML[1] and landed on Fastmail's Squire <https://github.com/fastmail/Squire https://github.com/fastmail/Squire>. It's MIT so you may enjoy it too... [1]: not just the usual "we have a rich document model" that has plenty of options, but as in my input data is HTML, and conversions back and forth aren't reliable enough
- Shorn 2y ago
  > "It's MIT" You mean: "It's MIT at the moment", right?
  - yencabulator 2y ago
    It's also a very "done" software component that sees very few changes, so there's not much downside. TinyMCE feels like a company pushing a v7 just to make you remember they exist.

77 points by _pferreir_ 2y ago

TinyMCE is switching to a licensing model akin to CKeditor's.

I hope Redis's license being changed makes more people wake up to the reality of the differences between copyleft and permissive. Permissive is, in practice, public domain. Any corporation can take your code and use it as closed-source. All they have to do is credit your name somewhere deep in the documentation, a completely meaningless gesture. They also can't sue you for copying "their" library. But that's about it.

Mystery-Machine 2y ago
Can you please clarify what's the difference between the two?
- tlocke 2y ago
  The way I think of it is that with permissive licences the freedoms can be removed from the code, but with copyleft the freedoms can't be removed from the code. By freedoms I mean the freedom to study the source code, to run it for whatever purpose you want, to make modifications and to share the code with other people.
- TheChaplain 2y ago
  GPL forces you to always supply the source code but only if you distribute the application. E.g. if you fork Nano and sell or make binaries available for download for free, people have the right to ask you for the source code. If you don't distribute it in any form, then you don't need to.[1] With MIT you can fork, distribute and people can't demand anything. [1]: Contrary to popular misinformation, modified GPL software can be used by businesses as long as it is not distributed.
  - worthless-trash 2y ago
    > people have the right to ask you for the source code. People you distributed binaries to have a right to the source code via the same method that the binaries are provided in. Or at least that was my understanding.
    - immibis 2y ago
      If it's a non-commercial affair, you can give them a "written offer valid for at least 3 years" and then you don't have to actually supply it unless someone asks. In practice, this isn't a very good option to take. Much better to provide it on a "network server" as they were called at the time the license was written.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - worthless-trash 2y ago
        This sounds like a very sane option to take, id like it to be codified in a license. Eternal availability sounds like a real hassle to maintain.
        immibis 2y ago
        It is codified...
        worthless-trash 2y ago
        You're right! thanks for the education. "b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge."
lifthrasiir 2y ago
I have also personally moved from non-PD permissive licenses for my own works, preferring an explicit public domain dedication or equivalent, and occasionally using a full copyleft license. I do know they are technically different (one important aspect being the patent clause), but the value added by those permissive licenses is not really significant.
lenerdenator 2y ago
To me, this is, over the long-term, a self-solving problem. Especially for simpler projects. It took a decade for GNU/Linux to get to the point where CTOs would throw it in the same category as commercial UNIXes, but when that happened, well... when was the last time you logged into a brand-spankin'-new HP-UX machine? And that was an operating system, one of the more ambitious types of software projects. Redis is trading short-term profit for their sustainability as a business. There are already forks that are FOSS; there will be more. Cloud service providers have every incentive to not have to pass on Redis license fees to the customer. TL;DR: you can't effectively compete over the long-term with the FOSS branches off the trunk that your now-closed-source software branches from.
- immibis 2y ago
  > There are already forks that are FOSS. FWIW Redis is still FOSS since SSPL is FOSS - very strong copyleft. It's not a proprietary license, it's rather "more AGPL than AGPL." Even if [the OSI](https://opensource.org/sponsors https://opensource.org/sponsors) disagrees.
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    If I'm understanding the changes Redis made, it's FOSS until you decide you want to use their server to create a cloud service offering. Am I mistaken?
    - immibis 2y ago
      It still is, you just have to publish the whole derived work that you created under the SSPL - not just the source to create redis.exe but also the whole source to create the backend of myhostedredisservice.com
    - Sander_Marechal 2y ago
      Then it isn't FOSS, because it violates freedom 0: The freedom to run the program as you wish

MatthiasPortzel 2y ago

In my opinion it’s a shame that the GPL is so clearly designed for licensing applications written in C being run by end users. When evaluated on that basis, it makes a lot of sense as a license. But there’s a lot of confusion around the license because it’s not clear how these concepts transfer to interpreted languages. The GNU FAQ for determining if two programs have been combined into a derived works asks “if the modules are included in the same executable file” and “if modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space.” If I’m writing a JavaScript library or a server-side framework or even bare metal microcontroller code, I’m not going to use the GPL, just because it’s not at all obvious how to apply the license.

consp 2y ago
> if modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space. How does this not apply to javascript?
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  That happens after distribution of "unlinked" code. GPL's copyleft doesn't apply to binaries that aren't distributed.
  - panzi 2y ago
    But would bundled and minified JavaScript not be very much like a binary? And isn't it distributed every time someone opens the web page?
belorn 2y ago
Programs written in C is a bit more obvious in how tightly coupled a program is to their libraries. It takes quite a lot of intention, work and design to make a C program independent of their library dependencies. If you remove a library and the work is completely inoperative and will practically never function without reapply the library, then the legal argument that they are independent and separate works start to loose strength. For programs written in interpreted languages, it is a bit less obvious how tightly coupled a program is to their libraries. It depend a lot on the design, intended use and the environment. Some programs regardless of language is going to be heavy dependent and based on a specific library, rather than a generic API for which any library could implement. The more the program incorporates aspects of the library as part of the program, the stronger the argument is for derivative status.

ssddanbrown 2y ago

TinyMCE provided a bit more information about this change in a GitHub discussion thread here: https://github.com/tinymce/tinymce/discussions/9496 https://github.com/tinymce/tinymce/discussions/9496 As I posted there, this directly affects my open source project which is heavily tied to TinyMCE so I may end up forking, and reducing down to what my project needs to reduce maintenance scope & burden. TinyMCE have been jumping around with their licensing. They were under LGPL, with some (what I believe were) misleading guidance into meeting the LGPL (they specified rules about keeping specific branding elements). They then jumped to MIT, and since moved some of the open plugins to their commercial offering. Now they're making this change.

Y_Y 2y ago
Would it be out of the question to relicense your project to GPL? I guess you want to allow people to use your work without releasing their source, but that's at odds with the fact that TinyMCE doesn't want that any more and you presumably rely on their work too. I certainly don't want to reopen any tired debates, I'm just interested in what the perspective of a downstream developer is like here.
- ssddanbrown 2y ago
  That's definitely an option, but I originally chose the MIT due to the simplicity & low friction/requirement for users, and for me it'd be a shame to change that, especially as it could impact users that have been using my software over the last 8 years. While I've gained a lot of understand & respect for GPL licenses over the years of being involved in open source, I'd still have a preference for MIT for this particular project for the reasons I originally chose it. Feels a bit annoying to change the licensing (and philosophy) of my project based upon a change from a dependency (but to be clear I respect their right to change license, and the value they've provided us to this point). Additionally, due to their licensing changes/hijinks over the years, I'm not overly confident there wouldn't be more changes ahead in favour of proprietary enterprise offerings.
  - c0l0 2y ago

Exuma 2y ago

What must one do on their project for GPL

donatj 2y ago

There are 219 contributors going back over a decade. Did they all either consent to the repeated license changes or sign away their rights with an CLA? You can’t just relicense contributions willy-nilly - without an CLA or similar agreement assigning ownership, contributions retain copyright of their original author.

alwayslikethis 2y ago
The general understanding is you can relicense MIT to GPL, but not the other way around. MIT has no requirement that you use the same license, only that the permission and attribution notice remains.
depr 2y ago
Do you mean CLA? I said the same thing about the recent Redis change. Apparently, the old contributions are still under the old license, and new contributions will be GPL. Because the old license is MIT, those contributions can be incorporated in the new GPL version. So there the old contributions are not relicensed and there is no need for it. If the old license were GPL and they wanted to move to e.g. BUSL, then they would have to ask all the contributors because GPL doesn't allow that.
- draven 2y ago
  But then they will sell you a license to use the whole project including their GPL bits. It's legal, but it's kind of a bait and switch and can be perceived negatively by the community. It's similar to what was done to Akka.
- rapnie 2y ago
  Drew Devault forked Redis, made the fork LGPL, then got so many questions that he created a fun little licensing quiz: https://fosstodon.org/@drewdevault/112156829031615403 https://fosstodon.org/@drewdevault/112156829031615403
  - Denvercoder9 2y ago
    Can anyone explain why the answer to the second question (https://fosstodon.org/@drewdevault/112156847020462949 https://fosstodon.org/@drewdevault/112156847020462949) is "no"? The MIT license grants all the rights that the GPL requires to be granted for derivative works (it is GPL-compatible). Is the problem here just that they don't distribute or offer the source code of the GPL-licensed library along with the pre-built binaries?

tlocke 2y ago

For my projects I prefer a permissive licence, specifically the MIT No Attribution Licence. People argue that corporations will just take your code and make it proprietary. They might, but an internal fork like that means that it's difficult to benefit from improvements in the original project. So in my experience corporations don't create an internal fork, they use the code as it is. Then if they find a bug for example they will contribute the fix to the project rather than forking, because it's the easiest option. So in other words, corporations are more likely to use code that's licensed under a permissive licence, and so they're more likely to contribute, simply out of their own self interest.

dirkc 2y ago

Compared to other projects moving to their own weird licenses, GPL2+ isn't the worst outcome. It's interesting to see how the sentiment around open source is changing in the last few years

butz 2y ago

What does the change mean if we have TinyMCE editor in our internal CMS tool and we plan on upgrading to version 7?

teddyh 2y ago
Probably nothing. An internal tool is not “distributed”, right?

lewisjoe 2y ago

Recently I was shocked when I came to know that both CKeditor and TinyMCE are now owned by the same parent company. The acquisition has happened silently, that many people think TinyMCE and CKEditor are different competing companies. Given that they are from the same governing body, it's no surprise they want to make TinyMCE adopt CKEditor's licensing path as well.

yencabulator 2y ago

I needed a WYSIWYG web editor specifically for HTML[1] and landed on Fastmail's Squire <https://github.com/fastmail/Squire https://github.com/fastmail/Squire>. It's MIT so you may enjoy it too... [1]: not just the usual "we have a rich document model" that has plenty of options, but as in my input data is HTML, and conversions back and forth aren't reliable enough

Shorn 2y ago
> "It's MIT" You mean: "It's MIT at the moment", right?
- yencabulator 2y ago
  It's also a very "done" software component that sees very few changes, so there's not much downside. TinyMCE feels like a company pushing a v7 just to make you remember they exist.