27

I've read all of the posts I can find on this and I'm still not sure of the answer.

I'd like to use a jQuery plugin on my website that is dual licensed under MIT and GPL.

  1. Does the dual license mean that as long as one or the other is satisfied I'm fine, or does it have to be both?

  2. I've read that a GPL javascript being loaded on someone's broswer doesn't count as redistribution, so I wouldn't have to use the GPL license for the rest of my site (provide source code). Is this true?

  3. My partner thinks I should remove the copyright altogether and change the variable names, as this is going to be on a commercial website. Is this ethical? I respect the person who took the time to write the code. Should I contact them and see if the plugin is available under a commercial license?

Thank you very much in advance for helping to clarify. As this is my first website, I figure it's better to ask these questions than take a shot in the dark.

Improve this question
3
  • 11
    Your partner needs to read up on "willful infringement", which often results in treble damages when you are sued for using someone else's work without their permission.
    – Ross Patterson
    Mar 15, 2012 at 16:45
  • For a definitive answer to questions about a specific package's license you can always ask the author (or copyright holder). Their interpretation of the license is the only one that matters because only they can sue you.
    – Craig
    Mar 21, 2012 at 16:25
  • 1
    You should definitely not do 3. That would be willful copyright infringement and could get you in a lot more trouble than 1 or 2 ever would.
    – Bill Leeper
    Nov 6, 2013 at 15:31

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
26

1) Does the dual license mean that as long as one or the other is satisfied I'm fine, or does it have to be both?

Yes. Specifically, jQuery makes it explicit that you can use it even in commercial environment.

Why then it is also with GPL? This is because, if someone wants to make additional javascript library using jQuery, he/she can choose GPL license for himself/herself and distribute further in GPL to protect the freedom (which won't be possible with MIT).

2) I've read that a GPL javascript being loaded on someone's broswer doesn't count as redistribution, so I wouldn't have to use the GPL license for the rest of my site (provide source code). Is this true?

As of GPLv3 the web page downloading the javascript is NOT distribution because it is NOT usable form. This is actually helpful for the website owners who classify such usage of project as self use rather than distribution and hence they don't have to open their source.

There is a new license GPL Affero - that prohibits this; i.e. if there is a jQuery like library released under GPL Affero, the website owner has to release their own code as well!

3) My partner thinks I should remove the copyright altogether and change the variable names, as this is going to be on a commercial website. Is this ethical? I respect the person who took the time to write the code. Should I contact them and see if the plugin is available under a commercial license?

You don't have to do this. Specifically for jQuery license permits all uses (unless you are going to bomb any parliament somewhere) so it is not essentially.

If there was license restriction, you should NOT use this rather than really NOT giving due credit to the original author.

Even if not on ethical ground, legally it would be tough to recreate copyrights by merely changing variable names

Improve this answer
4
  • 3
    Thank you for the very detailed answer. You thoroughly answered all of my questions, and I most definitely appreciate it! It's great to know that a beginner like me can come to a free site like this and receive such quality support. I look forward to learning more about programming and giving back to the community.
    – Newbie Aspiring Programmer
    Mar 14, 2012 at 6:03
  • 5
    The license you mention in 2) is GPL Affero, not Affro. It's not that hairy :)
    – Jaap
    Mar 14, 2012 at 10:02
  • 1
    Hmm, do you have an exact citation for the bit about GPLv3 not counting use in a web page as distribution?
    – SamB
    Jan 26, 2014 at 22:21
  • Could you make your answer to question 1 clearer? As it stands it's "Is it A or B?", answered with "yes". While technically correct, that's not a true answer (and probably not what you intended to say either).
    – Jasper
    Dec 26, 2017 at 23:20
1

I know this is an old question, but I want to answer the third part of the question more emphatically:

My partner thinks I should remove the copyright altogether and change the variable names, as this is going to be on a commercial website. Is this ethical? I respect the person who took the time to write the code. Should I contact them and see if the plugin is available under a commercial license?

No, this is not ethical. Definitely do not remove or modify copyright notices. If the license does not meet your requirements, then either negotiate a new license with the copyright holders or find another software component that meets your needs.

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    Is it alright to remove only one of the licence though? (1) I guess it's possible to keep only the GPL and to remove the MIT licence. But (2) is the opposite also OK: remove GPL and keep only MIT ?
    – Paul Rougieux
    Feb 20, 2020 at 16:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

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