LGPL licence for javascript use and non-free programs

[green]

Hope this thread is suitably placed here.

I have been studying Walter Zorn's javascript library at http://www.walterzorn.com
Walter Zorn's work is released under the LGPL licence.

I should like to use his tooltips in a proprietary program ie. non-free and not releasing the source code of my own program, which is in fact an ebook. The source code cannot be seen.

Can anyone advise whether I can use his Javascript in the way I've explained? Personally, I find the licence complex to understand. (I have not modified the javascript at all; just added it to my own HTML pages.) I can link to Walter Zorn's home page and include the GNU licence info on an acknowledgements page.

Can someone clarify this situation for using LGPL and javascript? I have written more than once to Mr Zorn but with no reply.

Thanks in advance.

Mike

[Snookerman]

Personally, I find the licence complex to understand.

I suggest you talk to an attorney about this issue.

[Twey]

I'm no lawyer, but as far as I understand it, you may so long as you give 'prominent' credit to WZ and his library. I presume the Help->About dialogue should suffice.

(advice not given in a professional capacity, cannot accept liability for any harm caused as a result, &c.)

[jscheuer1]

Also not an attorney. But the very nature of most of these public licences is that the code may be used as long as any modifications are also made publicly available. Since you've made no modification, a credit would be a courtesy and could be required by the license. But you would be under no obligation to publish the code, since no modification has been made to it.

However, if you want to be 100% sure, either wait until you hear from Walter, or get legal advice.

In general though, since you've tried in good faith to contact Walter (the author), and would presumably be willing to do whatever he asks should he ever contact you about this, and since even if he were to approach you about this with or without regard to your prior attempt to contact him, he would probably only (at first) ask that you fulfill the licence in any way(s) that he had determined that you were not doing so.

It would only be after a refusal to follow his request(s) (if any at that hypothetical point) that any legal action and/or liability would be likely to follow.

[green]

Thanks for all your comments. Don't worry, I understand your comments are advisory only.

It seems on program designer forums right across the Internet LGPL licence rules are queried and argued about without anybody seeming to understand exactly how to interpret the licence clauses. It seems the GNU themselves try to ward off program developers from using the "Lesser" version of the GPL for fear of those (like me) who develop non-free programs using the resources under this licence. eg. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

I'll look in again on this thread in case others have further comments. Thanks.

Mike

[jscheuer1]

Well that link you give in your last post clearly states that the LGPL is for code that may be freely used in commercial (any really) application free of charge. The full GPL is the only version that requires payment for use of its code, and then only for commercial products.

[Twey]

The GPL doesn't require payment for use of GPL'd code. It's free to reuse, unless the new product would be under an incompatible license, in which case it isn't allowed to be used at all, paid or otherwise (although if given incentive I suppose the author could be persuaded to release it under a different license to the payer).

[green]

As I understand it, GPL code can be used, modified or not, but only in programmes which are also under a GPL licence. But one clause of a GPL licence states the source of the entire work must be made available (something I don't want to do). Even though you can charge for the work - commercially the licence is useless because your work can then be copied.

However, my case involves the L (lesser) GPL which (as I understand) allows anyone to use the code in proprietary programmes under any type of licence but only IF you don't modify the original source code.

In the licence description's preamble it says this:

"Most GNU software, including some libraries, is covered by the ordinary GNU General Public License. This license, the GNU Lesser General Public License, applies to certain designated libraries, and is quite different from the ordinary General Public License. We use this license for certain libraries in order to permit linking those libraries into non-free programs."

But then reading on (see section 6) it seems to contradict the above or state that the source code must be revealed.

Here is the full licence if anyone cares to wade through it.

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.php

I include this query and debate, not just for my own purposes but for other members of this forum who would be interested in the huge wealth of LGPL code out there that they might like to know how to use.

Can anyone clarify whether LGPL code can be used in one's own programme with a licence of one's choice and without revealing source code?

[jscheuer1]

Well, it is quite complicated, and I find it amusing that a search of:

GNU Lesser General Public License made simple

on Google yields no useful material for those wishing to use code so licensed near the top, and that by specifying:

GNU Lesser General Public "License made simple"

where "License made simple" must appear in just that order, yields no results. And it doesn't help to make the required part of the string:

"License 2.1 made simple"

or:

"License version 2.1 made simple"

From that we can conclude that it appears no one out there wants to make this easy to understand for the novice planning on incorporating code that is so licensed into their project.

That said, reading over it, yes Section 6 does contradict other sections, but only as alternative means of fulfilling the terms.

I don't think I understand it, but it doesn't look like anything that a few clear headed read throughs wouldn't elucidate. If one is interested in following it, some time devoted to reading and rereading should be all it takes, though I have to admit my eyes (and I would think most people's eyes) tend to glaze over quickly with this type of material. But persistence should pay off. I would suggest first thing after a full cup of coffee in the morning for several mornings. It looks like the main points are including a copyright of the owner of the code used and a copy of the license with the final project wherever its copyright is displayed (the actual text of the license may be elsewhere) and making the source of the final project something that the end users can relatively easily modify for their own purposes. Relatively easily including reverse engineering, so it doesn't have to be too easy.