Fancybox 2 new license

Question

The new license for Fancybox 2 states we cant use this plugin for commercial purposes. I'm a web developer and always promoted this plugin to my costumers. Does this mean I need to find or write a new plugin with a more free license?

Maybe I just don't understand the noncommercial word correct, if so pleas correct me. But what I can find around the internet it's states I cant use a software with this license on a webpage where the business is making money.

Solution 1

Your interpretation of the license is correct (although the usual I'm-not-a-lawyer disclaimer applies). The Creative Commons Non-Commercial licenses are meant to give people free access to a creative work, as long as they don't intend on making money from it.

If - as a webdeveloper - you sell sites to your clients, you're therefor not allowed to use the Fancybox2 plugin using the CC-NC license. Your options are basically:

1. Choose to obtain a commercial license from the author of Fancybox 2. He offers two alternative licenses: a single-website license for $19.00, or a multi-website license (which you as a webdeveloper can use for all your clients) for $89.00.
2. Choose to use the older Fancybox 1, which has been made available under a more "free" license, as you put it. Since that license allows redistribution under the same terms, these older versions will be around for quite some time.
3. Choose to find / write an alternative library offering the same functionality.

Addendum: A counter-question to those wondering about the legality of making this plugin commercially available: Could you motivate why you feel this way? The jQuery project is made available under both the MIT and GPL licenses; the MIT license (along with the BSD license) are among the most relaxing licenses in existence. The only demand it places on redistribution is that the copyright notice on the code remains intact, to honor the original author. It's perfectly permissible to ship jQuery as part of software under a different license - even Microsoft redistributes jQuery as part of Visual Studio.

Solution 2

Like you I was a user of the fancybox v1 plugin. Like you I was surprised to discover the v2 changed the licensing requiring me to purchase a license for commercial use. But, let me save you some time and make this suggestion: just purchase the multi site license.

I look at it this way, it's arguable that given the fact that jQuery is free, extending it with the v2 plugin and then charging money for it is legally questionable. Like the comments above, I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea.

That said, look at the cost of the plugin, compared to how much it does for you. Bear in mind v2 is quite improved, it's faster, it fixes a number of bugs in v1, etc. Now I don't want to make any assumptions about you and your hourly rate, but personally, if I was to try and write that plugin myself, just because it's then 'for free', purchasing the plugin would probably pay for itself within the first few hours of me trying to write it myself.

Bottom line: get the multisite license and focus on solving your clients problems. We did and it took us all of about 10mins to buy, d/l and incorporate. Done!

Comments

[hakre]

"4. b. You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works." creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode

[Kevin Brown-Silva]

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about licensing or legal issues, not programming or software development. See here for details, and the help center for more.

[superhero]

I mark this as the right anser. Think we would need a lawyer to get a better one..

[kander]

"extending it with the v2 plugin and then charging money for it is legally questionable" -> no, that's perfectly fine legally, since jQuery is made available under a license that explicitly allows this (MIT license).

[studioromeo]

Hm, does anyone know how this applies when placed inside a WordPress GPL licensed plugin? Especially if that plugin facilitates the site owners ability to take sales? (ie a shop)

[kander]

Good question. With the usual disclaimer, I'd say that this is fine. Your purpose of redistributing is non-commercial (since the plugin itself is made available under the GPL). The conditions in the license are conditions placed upon the intent of redistribution of the code; they are not conditions placed upon the purpose for which code is then used. Keep in mind that that's just what this one developer thinks - to be sure, consult with someone specialized in these manners (sounds like a question that would do well on Quora!)

[ronakg]

@studioromeo, WordPress doesn't entertain any plugin which uses any CC licensed code. I had to remove HighSlide from my plugin because of this. So I believe Fancybox2 in a WordPress plugin is also no go.

[jondow]

Thanks for the clarification - and fair enough then.

[Mnementh]

@studioromeo: CC-NC licensed stuff and GPL licensed stuff cannot be combined (as far as I understand), because CC-NC has a clause that is in conflict with the terms of the GPL (the NC-part) and the GPL demands that all derived work from GPL-stuff is also GPL-licensed. So no, that would not work.

[Mnementh]

See kanders comment under the other answer, the MIT-license for jQuery don't impose any restrictions on the license of extensions like fancybox.

[hakre]

@Mnementh: The questionable part is that the author writes you can not use CC by-nc 3.0 copyrighted works for a commercial website. This is wrong. The license per-se does not imply such a limitation. If the author thinks differently then I'd say it's a clear sign that the author wants to license it differently than CC by-nc 3.0 therefore I'd written it is legally questionable. Apart from that, at least in the source package on Github, it contains GPL'ed code which is also questionable as not compatible with CC by-nc 3.0.

[Mnementh]

Ok, that are reasonable complaints. You should add this to your answer, to clarify your critics.