The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
See what the license has to say about that. If you're allowed to use the library while giving credit, go for it. Otherwise, not. By your description, you aren't faking anything. The properties of YOUR binary indicate you as the author, what's wrong with that?
What does the license for the open source library say? If you do what's allowed by the license it's neither illegal nor unethical. The open source developer(s) chose the license to release the code under. If they wanted to require credit or to prevent or restrict certain modifications they could have done so.
If you break the license, on the other hand you could potentially be sued. (I'll leave the ethics question to the philosophers).
If I'm understanding your question right I don't think you have an issue. You're not redistributing the open source code in source or binary form correct? You're proposing modifying the open source code to suit your needs and change what it outputs? In that case I am not even sure gpl or lgpl would come into play. I believe (I could be wrong so double check for yourself) they only cover redistribution of the code in source or binary form. If you make modifications and use them internally to accomplish a task I don't think they require you to credit anyone or make your mods available or do anything else. I know MIT and the other less obnoxious licenses would not. I don't use gpl code ever, and rarely use lgpl code so I haven't reviewed those licenses in awhile.
But to repeat, follow the rules and if what you're doing is not prohibited, then it's allowed. Open source authors have ample means to restrict how people use their stuff. I would not overly concern myself with their potential hurt feelings. Just follow the law.
Thanks, but someone has found a statement from the author saying that it's OK. I have (to this dismay of my boss) already changed my installer to credit the product and author.
The tricky part is this: There is only one easy way to have the output executable created with the desired properties and icon and that is to modify the resources of the author's original .sfx file. While I am not directly distributing the modified .sfx file, I am distributing a file where the modified .sfx file is embedded or integrated into the resulting executable.
Anyhow, thanks for taking the time to reply. btw, software devs are a touchy lot when it comes to this sort of topic. Quite a few seem to think that I should credit MS for using their compilers!
Ohh that's interesting. So a piece of his content is actually being distributed with yours? In that case his permission probably is relevant. You're otherwise making what we would call a derivative work and that would implicate copyright law and be governed by the license.
But glad he is ok with it and tell your boss giving him credit is the classy thing to do!
Edit: Just to clarify...I am only referring to the properties of the self-extracting executable that is basically just acting as an installer, not any 7-zip libraries. I don't mind having a short blurb in an installer to give credit.
In that case, I really don't see an ethical problem, but I would at least contact 7-zip guys or read the license terms just to be sure.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
Thanks, someone here (Brisinger) found the exact same issue I had with a statement from the author himself about how to handle it. (he doesn't have a problem with it) I already modified my installer to credit the self-extraction technology used to 7-Zip and it's author.
The license, to me, makes it clear that copyright notices must be maintained.
And other than that the code can be modified - that is what the license says.
then I notice the file properties tool-tip on the archives with some undesirable information...Author, Company,
I seriously doubt that that represents copyright information. If it did it would suggest that it was attempting to copyright the file and not the mechanism of the construction. Seems unlikely.
That said lawyers get paid to provide legal advice.
Since it is not a copyright and since it does not provide specific information about the file itself it would actually seem "ethical" to modify it, and somewhat unethical to not do so. After all if you mess up the process then they should blame you not the other other product.
Might note as well that I am unable to re-produce the results with the actual tool. All the information I see when creating an archive relates to me, the person doing the creating and where I created it.
Aside from the above given that you are using it in a commercial application then ethically you should give them some money.
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant Anonymous - The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine Winston Churchill, 1944 - I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy. Me, all the time