Library GPL follow up question

[adams161]

I have found under LGPL to use Monge's chess pieces 3 conditions have to be met.

1) attribution
2) modifications to the pieces or the art source must give credit and remain under same license
3) the application using the pieces should be able to accept updates or revisions to the library or image collection i.e. it needs to be able to relink to the lgpl source.

3 is the only one that is problamatic. An android application if it has no copy protection can have its png files modfied, but the application must be resigned and that is a very technical area. I havent had success in following over last 24 hours all the various steps needed to be followed to modify or relink resources in an android application. But it can be done.

Is the fact that it can be done sufficient?

I also talked to the author, and he says he was not even aware of the re-link requirement. He only cared about 1 and 2 and in particular attribution. But also he wanted anyone who modified what he refers to as 'his source' to be bound by the license.

The author, Monge, even suggested he could use a license that only covered 1 and 2 but not relinking, however I do not want to ask him to mess with his license trivially. LGPL may be all i need and it does cover the spirt of his requirements nicely.

of my 3 options, 1) go with it the way it is, if relinking is not trivial it can be done, or 2) suggest another license, and 3) can i ask the author to not bind me to lgpl but personally he allows me to use the pieces following only 1 and 2, while anyone else would have to be under LGPL without a waiver? is it possible for a work under LGPL to grant waivers with permission of author?

Mike

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

3 is the only one that is problamatic. An android application if it has no copy protection can have its png files modfied, but the application must be resigned and that is a very technical area. I havent had success in following over last 24 hours all the various steps needed to be followed to modify or relink resources in an android application. But it can be done.

I'm not intimately familiar with Android development, but I'm a bit puzzled at the technical problem you're having here. Are you saying that it's easy to make an Android app with resources if compiled from source, but that modifying the resources when it's in binary appears to be more problematic?

Is the fact that it can be done sufficient?

If you're sure, yes. But if it's possible, why aren't you succeeding? If challenged, the onus would be on you to prove it's possible. (Some Googling turns up many other Android developers with similar problems trying to use LGPL stuff)

is it possible for a work under LGPL to grant waivers with permission of author?

The author who owns the copyright controls the licensing, and can do whatever he pleases. If he wishes to publish it under another license, he can do so. (But beware of unintended consequences of Frankenstein-licenses)

[adams161]

with regard to why there is so much trouble modifying resources:

An android program is one file. an apk file. Its actually rather trivial to open it up and look at the resources folder and take any resources you want out. if its myfile.apk rename it myfile.apk.zip and just unzip it. any unzipper ( windows zip for example) can unzip it. the code is in binary or object files not source.

Ok so you just open the zip, swap in new graphics of same name and try to put it back on the phone. wont work that simply. When you changed, modified altered that apk file, you broke its digital signature.

this signing is something I do when i want to export my project to an apk file in eclipse. i go through about 9 steps to sign the apk file. i have to enter how many years its good for, give my name, and create a password for this signing.

so there lies the issue. how to let users both modify ( modifying is easy) and resign the apk file, so that android doesnt report back "Application not installed".

At this point the author has stated he has no objection to the use of the pieces as i outlined, so I'm inclined to leave it as is.

Mike

[adams161]

The author who owns the copyright controls the licensing, and can do whatever he pleases. If he wishes to publish it under another license, he can do so. (But beware of unintended consequences of Frankenstein-licenses)[\quote]

Can the author simply give me permission to use the work, without changing his LGPL license to the rest of the world? He can then address if this is going to be an issue and he needs to republish the work under another license on his own time and own terms.

I saw the creative commons license had a clause that you must follow the license but the author is always free to give permission for an exception.

Legally it seems to me he could keep them published under LGPL, and simply grant me permission, if he wants to and trusts my intended use and myself. He has shown a willingness to do something.

key point here is i'm just saying he grants me permission, independent of the license its published under, that way, he can over time decide for himself without me pressuring him if he needs to republish.

Mike

[jwes]

The author who owns the copyright controls the licensing, and can do whatever he pleases. If he wishes to publish it under another license, he can do so. (But beware of unintended consequences of Frankenstein-licenses)[\quote]

Can the author simply give me permission to use the work, without changing his LGPL license to the rest of the world? He can then address if this is going to be an issue and he needs to republish the work under another license on his own time and own terms.

I saw the creative commons license had a clause that you must follow the license but the author is always free to give permission for an exception.

Legally it seems to me he could keep them published under LGPL, and simply grant me permission, if he wants to and trusts my intended use and myself. He has shown a willingness to do something.

key point here is i'm just saying he grants me permission, independent of the license its published under, that way, he can over time decide for himself without me pressuring him if he needs to republish.

Mike

If it is solely his work, he can allow you (or anyone else) to use his work in any way he sees fit. If there are other authors, then they all have to agree.

[adams161]

cool. that makes sense to me.

I wasn't sure if users have any implied rights under LGPL. like this is under LGPL, i cant link an update, I'm injured, even though the author himself claims no injury or even dissatisfaction.

Mike

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

I believe it is an open question if an end-user can enforce the (L)GPL. I have seen some talk about attempts at this but no clear results.

In any case if the original author is willing to give you the artwork under a diffferent license from the LGPL, you are obviously not affected by it.