Understanding Licenses (Specifically LGPL)
-
Hello all, I am currently working on a project that will most likely use a slightly modified (by me) version of a piece of software (specifically a Javascript/Html/CSS combo). This software is covered by LGPL licensing. As this project is commerical, and the final output will ultimately be "sold" to the 3rd party that requested it, I need to be 100% certain that I am not moving outside the limitations of the license. So I googled LPGP and came across this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html[^] Which I assume to be the "definitive" license. The problem is this is written in legal speak, my current interpretation is that I am OK to use the software as I plan to (i.e. modify slightly, resell, maintain the LGPL header with reference to the original author). However before commiting to using the software I would need to be absolutely certain of this. As a single interpretation example, the license states:
Give prominent notice with each copy of the Combined Work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License.
What exactly is prominent? As a comment header in the JS/CSS/HTML files? On the user visible page? On a "credits" page? On a fluorescent pink full screen popup with flashing border and dancing gorillas? So does anybody know anything about LGPL? or does anybody know of a "plain english" version that isnt open to interpretation?
-
Hello all, I am currently working on a project that will most likely use a slightly modified (by me) version of a piece of software (specifically a Javascript/Html/CSS combo). This software is covered by LGPL licensing. As this project is commerical, and the final output will ultimately be "sold" to the 3rd party that requested it, I need to be 100% certain that I am not moving outside the limitations of the license. So I googled LPGP and came across this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html[^] Which I assume to be the "definitive" license. The problem is this is written in legal speak, my current interpretation is that I am OK to use the software as I plan to (i.e. modify slightly, resell, maintain the LGPL header with reference to the original author). However before commiting to using the software I would need to be absolutely certain of this. As a single interpretation example, the license states:
Give prominent notice with each copy of the Combined Work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License.
What exactly is prominent? As a comment header in the JS/CSS/HTML files? On the user visible page? On a "credits" page? On a fluorescent pink full screen popup with flashing border and dancing gorillas? So does anybody know anything about LGPL? or does anybody know of a "plain english" version that isnt open to interpretation?
I would assume any place you list legal stuff. Your lawyer should be able to tell u. For me I would assume the license agreement should be enough, as the user would have to accept it.
**
xacc.ide-0.2.0.77 - now with C# 3.5 support and Navigation Bar!^
New xacc.ide release RSS feed^**
-
Hello all, I am currently working on a project that will most likely use a slightly modified (by me) version of a piece of software (specifically a Javascript/Html/CSS combo). This software is covered by LGPL licensing. As this project is commerical, and the final output will ultimately be "sold" to the 3rd party that requested it, I need to be 100% certain that I am not moving outside the limitations of the license. So I googled LPGP and came across this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html[^] Which I assume to be the "definitive" license. The problem is this is written in legal speak, my current interpretation is that I am OK to use the software as I plan to (i.e. modify slightly, resell, maintain the LGPL header with reference to the original author). However before commiting to using the software I would need to be absolutely certain of this. As a single interpretation example, the license states:
Give prominent notice with each copy of the Combined Work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License.
What exactly is prominent? As a comment header in the JS/CSS/HTML files? On the user visible page? On a "credits" page? On a fluorescent pink full screen popup with flashing border and dancing gorillas? So does anybody know anything about LGPL? or does anybody know of a "plain english" version that isnt open to interpretation?
From what you're describing you can use it, but you do have to make your mods available to others. You don't have to make the rest of your app available, but the mods you make to the LGPL lib do have be available to whomever wants them. My understanding is that listing the lib in an about box is just fine. I am NOT a lawyer. So take the above with a grain of salt.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
-
I would assume any place you list legal stuff. Your lawyer should be able to tell u. For me I would assume the license agreement should be enough, as the user would have to accept it.
**
xacc.ide-0.2.0.77 - now with C# 3.5 support and Navigation Bar!^
New xacc.ide release RSS feed^**
leppie wrote:
Your lawyer should be able to tell u.
There is no lawyer, and it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be one. This project is for a friend of a friend of a friend who needs a web site for their business, this isn't my full time job by any stretch of the imagination. However, I need to be certain that fast forward 1 year I am not going to land a friend of a friend of a friend in legal copyright issues, when the original script author sees that I am using a modified version of their script, and their interpretation of prominent involves dancing gorillas. When I hand over the site, the "friend" will obviously be made aware of the use of this script as a component of their site.
-
leppie wrote:
Your lawyer should be able to tell u.
There is no lawyer, and it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be one. This project is for a friend of a friend of a friend who needs a web site for their business, this isn't my full time job by any stretch of the imagination. However, I need to be certain that fast forward 1 year I am not going to land a friend of a friend of a friend in legal copyright issues, when the original script author sees that I am using a modified version of their script, and their interpretation of prominent involves dancing gorillas. When I hand over the site, the "friend" will obviously be made aware of the use of this script as a component of their site.
As long as there's no client side install you have nothing to worry about - none of these licenses cover software delivery as a service. (That's why Web 2.0 is so popular - you can use free software that is "free as in stolen" ;-) )
'--8<------------------------ Ex Datis: Duncan Jones Merrion Computing Ltd
-
As long as there's no client side install you have nothing to worry about - none of these licenses cover software delivery as a service. (That's why Web 2.0 is so popular - you can use free software that is "free as in stolen" ;-) )
'--8<------------------------ Ex Datis: Duncan Jones Merrion Computing Ltd
-
Hello all, I am currently working on a project that will most likely use a slightly modified (by me) version of a piece of software (specifically a Javascript/Html/CSS combo). This software is covered by LGPL licensing. As this project is commerical, and the final output will ultimately be "sold" to the 3rd party that requested it, I need to be 100% certain that I am not moving outside the limitations of the license. So I googled LPGP and came across this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html[^] Which I assume to be the "definitive" license. The problem is this is written in legal speak, my current interpretation is that I am OK to use the software as I plan to (i.e. modify slightly, resell, maintain the LGPL header with reference to the original author). However before commiting to using the software I would need to be absolutely certain of this. As a single interpretation example, the license states:
Give prominent notice with each copy of the Combined Work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License.
What exactly is prominent? As a comment header in the JS/CSS/HTML files? On the user visible page? On a "credits" page? On a fluorescent pink full screen popup with flashing border and dancing gorillas? So does anybody know anything about LGPL? or does anybody know of a "plain english" version that isnt open to interpretation?
You can find the different types of licenses here: http://themes.freshmeat.net/faq/view/48/[^] However your corporate lawyer is the best person of consultation before you bind a particular one to the product and ship it.
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage Tech Gossips