Scripts, source, and Reciprocal Licenses
Meaning that the commercial license is a good thing. If we include MPL and the user doesn't like MPL, well they have an option. The only people I saw having heartburn were those against Open Source projects having commercial terms too (which I admit to wincing at, but it's definitely a viable market.
Commercial license terms can be found here: http://www.fckeditor.net/license
Original thread: http://markmail.org/message/movcwc467ob3m3hh
I don't see why the commercial license would give users heartburn (at least, I don't see those users' views being important to the ASF ).
Generally this seems to depend on LEGAL-24being resolved before it would be allowed.
An an optional dependency not shipped with Cocoon - seems OK.
As something bundled w/Cocoon, I would think that the commercial licenses would give some users heartburn.