For many companies and products, Open Source licenses are not an option.
This is why the CKSource Closed Distribution License (CDL) has been introduced.
CKEditor can be used without paying a commercial license. The commercial license is available if GPL, LGPL, or MPL are not satisfactory. The text below is stating that, for companies that cannot use software under an Open Source license for whatever reason, they can still purchase a commercial license.
For many companies and products, Open Source licenses are not an option.
This is why the CKSource Closed Distribution License (CDL) has been introduced.
For your use, I would recommend either LGPL or MPL to be safe. The GPL requires all software linked to the GPL code to also be GPL (or a compatible license). This is why it is considered a "viral license" by many companies. The other licenses do not carry this requirement. The LGPL specifically removes it; that is why it is known as the "Library" or "Lesser" GPL.
As far as the line between commercial and non-commercial use, that depends on the software that you are integrating with. It is perfectly fine for someone to pay you to create a site - it does not mean that the resulting work itself is commercial. You are not integrating the editor in your web design services site, so that shouldn't be the criteria you use to decide. You would be integrating it in the site you have been hired to create. If this site itself provides or is a front for commercial products or services, then it's commercial. But again, you do not need to purchase the commercial license if your client is OK with the terms of LGPL or MPL (I don't see why they wouldn't).
CKEditor (previously FCKEditor) can be licensed under GPL, LGPL, MPL, and even a CKSource Closed Distribution License (CDL). GPL and LGPL (probably MPL as well) are distribution-based licenses. That is, they only apply when you're re-distributing the software. Although it's not clear from your question, my guess is you just want to 'use' CKEditor in a website design as opposed to incorporating it into website software that you're going to distribute and/or sell. In the use-in-website case, the ASP loophole probably applies to your scenario regardless of personal or commercial use and there's no need to pay for anything or apply any licenses on your website work.
If, however, you turn around and decide you want to try an distribute and/or sell your custom CMS that incorporates the CKEditor (for example, sell it to other website designers that need a CMS), then you must abide by the rules of whichever license you select and pay accordingly if you decide the CDL license is most appropriate for your needs. The CKEditor website has good examples of reasons why you would choose the CDL option.
Have you seen the http://ckeditor.com/license page ? It seems pretty clear it's free for non-commercial use, but you need a license for commercial use.
More generally, it depends on the license of the app in question. Open-source apps are typically free to use, but may place restrictions on redistribution. IF the license is MIT, BSD or Apache you can essentially do what you want providing you keep their copyright notice there. If the license is GPL, the requirement to redistribute your code under a copyleft license too is typically incompatible with commercial use.
You'll have to check the license of whatever you're using, but in general you can use open source stuff for anything as long as you don't claim it as your own.
Unfortunately it's not as simple as just the two licensing models, since open source licenses fall under several other categories. In some cases, you cannot release your code under a different license with an open source library linked to it (like the GPL). In other cases, you can make changes to the open source code and re-release it as closed source (like the Apache License). See this reference for free software licenses and which are okay to link or release with different licenses.
发布评论
评论（5）
无需支付商业许可即可使用CKEditor。如果 GPL、LGPL 或 MPL 不满足要求，可以使用商业许可证。下面的文字指出，对于无论出于何种原因无法使用开源许可下的软件的公司，他们仍然可以购买商业许可。
对于您的使用，为了安全起见，我建议使用 LGPL 或 MPL。 GPL 要求所有链接到 GPL 代码的软件也必须是 GPL（或兼容许可证）。这就是为什么它被许多公司视为“病毒许可证”。其他许可证没有此要求。 LGPL 专门将其删除；这就是为什么它被称为“库”或“较小”GPL。
就商业和非商业用途之间的界限而言，这取决于您要集成的软件。有人付钱给你创建一个网站是完全可以的——这并不意味着最终的作品本身就是商业性的。您没有将编辑器集成到您的网页设计服务站点中，因此这不应该是您用来决定的标准。您将把它集成到您受雇创建的网站中。如果该网站本身提供商业产品或服务，或者是商业产品或服务的幌子，那么它就是商业网站。但同样，如果您的客户同意 LGPL 或 MPL 的条款，您不需要购买商业许可证（我不明白他们为什么不这样做）。
CKEditor can be used without paying a commercial license. The commercial license is available if GPL, LGPL, or MPL are not satisfactory. The text below is stating that, for companies that cannot use software under an Open Source license for whatever reason, they can still purchase a commercial license.
For your use, I would recommend either LGPL or MPL to be safe. The GPL requires all software linked to the GPL code to also be GPL (or a compatible license). This is why it is considered a "viral license" by many companies. The other licenses do not carry this requirement. The LGPL specifically removes it; that is why it is known as the "Library" or "Lesser" GPL.
As far as the line between commercial and non-commercial use, that depends on the software that you are integrating with. It is perfectly fine for someone to pay you to create a site - it does not mean that the resulting work itself is commercial. You are not integrating the editor in your web design services site, so that shouldn't be the criteria you use to decide. You would be integrating it in the site you have been hired to create. If this site itself provides or is a front for commercial products or services, then it's commercial. But again, you do not need to purchase the commercial license if your client is OK with the terms of LGPL or MPL (I don't see why they wouldn't).
CKEditor（以前称为 FCKEditor）可以根据 GPL、LGPL、MPL 甚至 CKSource 封闭分发许可证 (CDL) 获得许可。 GPL 和 LGPL（也可能是 MPL）是基于分发的许可证。也就是说，它们仅在您重新分发软件时适用。尽管您的问题尚不清楚，但我的猜测是您只是想在网站设计中“使用”CKEditor，而不是将其合并到您要分发和/或销售的网站软件中。在网站内使用的情况下，ASP 漏洞可能适用于您的场景，无论个人或商业用途，无需支付任何费用或在您的网站工作上申请任何许可证。
但是，如果您转身并决定尝试分发和/或出售包含 CKEditor 的自定义 CMS（例如，将其出售给需要 CMS 的其他网站设计者），那么您必须遵守以下规则：如果您认为 CDL 许可证最适合您的需求，则无论您选择哪个许可证并相应支付费用。 CKEditor 网站有很好的示例说明您选择 CDL 选项的原因。
CKEditor (previously FCKEditor) can be licensed under GPL, LGPL, MPL, and even a CKSource Closed Distribution License (CDL). GPL and LGPL (probably MPL as well) are distribution-based licenses. That is, they only apply when you're re-distributing the software. Although it's not clear from your question, my guess is you just want to 'use' CKEditor in a website design as opposed to incorporating it into website software that you're going to distribute and/or sell. In the use-in-website case, the ASP loophole probably applies to your scenario regardless of personal or commercial use and there's no need to pay for anything or apply any licenses on your website work.
If, however, you turn around and decide you want to try an distribute and/or sell your custom CMS that incorporates the CKEditor (for example, sell it to other website designers that need a CMS), then you must abide by the rules of whichever license you select and pay accordingly if you decide the CDL license is most appropriate for your needs. The CKEditor website has good examples of reasons why you would choose the CDL option.
您看过 http://ckeditor.com/license 页面吗？看起来很明显，非商业用途是免费的，但商业用途需要许可证。
更一般地说，这取决于相关应用程序的许可证。开源应用程序通常可以免费使用，但可能会对重新分发施加限制。如果许可证是 MIT、BSD 或 Apache，只要保留他们的版权声明，您基本上就可以做您想做的事情。如果许可证是 GPL，则在 Copyleft 许可证下重新分发代码的要求通常也不符合商业用途。
Have you seen the http://ckeditor.com/license page ? It seems pretty clear it's free for non-commercial use, but you need a license for commercial use.
More generally, it depends on the license of the app in question. Open-source apps are typically free to use, but may place restrictions on redistribution. IF the license is MIT, BSD or Apache you can essentially do what you want providing you keep their copyright notice there. If the license is GPL, the requirement to redistribute your code under a copyleft license too is typically incompatible with commercial use.
您必须检查您正在使用的任何内容的许可证，但一般来说，只要您不声称它是您自己的，您就可以将开源内容用于任何内容。
You'll have to check the license of whatever you're using, but in general you can use open source stuff for anything as long as you don't claim it as your own.
不幸的是，它并不像两种许可模式那么简单，因为开源许可属于其他几个类别。在某些情况下，您无法在链接到开源库（如 GPL）的不同许可证下发布代码。在其他情况下，您可以对开源代码进行更改并将其作为闭源代码重新发布（如 Apache 许可证）。请参阅此参考了解自由软件许可证以及可以使用不同许可证链接或发布的许可证。
Unfortunately it's not as simple as just the two licensing models, since open source licenses fall under several other categories. In some cases, you cannot release your code under a different license with an open source library linked to it (like the GPL). In other cases, you can make changes to the open source code and re-release it as closed source (like the Apache License). See this reference for free software licenses and which are okay to link or release with different licenses.