1

I am the author of a open source library for websites that is licensed under LGPL. To make this library easy to use for non-developers I plan to create a simple to use UI-component based on the library which is free, but not open source. To make the difference between the two parts clear:

  • My library can read and render particular file formats in the browser.
  • My component is a visual control that can be used by end-users easily. It consists of a special layout, a menu, settings that can be adjusted, a toolbar and the most important thing for me a logo with the product name. Clicking on the logo will show a small about box containing further attribution as required by licenses (name of the component, link to the component website, LGPL info, CC logo etc).

My case is comparable with a PDF library. The library for rendering PDFs is open source, but the full-blown PDF viewer component is only freeware under CC.

Since open source licenses tend to allow rebranding and removal of logos I plan to release this component as "freeware" under a CreativeCommons license. People should be allowed to use and redistribute the component but do not change it by modifying the source code or removing the logo and about box.

I planed to use Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International for my component but the ShareAlike part does not directly prohibit the removal of my logo as long as the attribution is done appropriately. Am I safe with this license or do I need to go for a Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International? Without derivatives there would not be the possibility to create a version which does not contain the logo.

  • 1
    1) The library is licensed under LGPL, correct? 2) As you say "freeware": Are you fine with users selling your UI component? – unor Mar 11 '17 at 18:19
1

If you want to disallow modifications, you certainly want to use a NoDerivs license.

In general, CC BY-SA is just as permissive as plain CC BY-SA, with the exception that downstream changes must remain under CC-BY-SA. Neither CC BY or CC BY-SA prevents modification (indeed, allowing modification is a large part of the point), and they do not contain any special considerations for preservation of branding or trademarks. (In fact, if a downstream users does modify the work, they should remove any trademarks, or else run the risk of misusing your trademark for a version of the work that you didn't approve.)

Consider also that CC BY-SA 4.0 is GPLv3-compatible, so you must be prepared for the possibility that someone will modify your CC BY-SA work and license the modified work under the GPLv3.

  • Thanks for this explaination. This means I will need to go for a NoDerivs variant of CC. – Danielku15 Mar 15 '17 at 19:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.