credits option doesn't work as documented

[rrthomas]

I'm trying to use credits: {enabled: false}. This setting is used in the example active-slide.html, and it doesn't work there (I'm testing using current git master), so I don't think it's just me!

Looking at the code, in src/js/mixed/waterMark.js, the test for whether the "water mark", as it is called there, is used is: !state.isValid || getOptions().credits.enabled. In other words, AFAICT, you can only disable the credits if you have a valid license key.

So, please could you either fix the bug (if you think the documentation is correct), or update the documentation (if this behaviour is intentional).

I hope this behaviour is not intentional! I'm working on a static web site which tries to use fullPage.js to replicate the look of an art book, so I really don't want to have the watermark on each page. I was planning to put an acknowledgement on the site's acknowledgements page.

Thanks for fullPage.js!

[alvarotrigo]

If you are going for the open-source key, you can request one here:
https://alvarotrigo.com/fullPage/extensions/requestKey.html

Then you should be able to get rid of the credits.

[rrthomas]

If you are going for the open-source key, you can request one here: https://alvarotrigo.com/fullPage/extensions/requestKey.html

According to this page "Please note that only open-source projects compatible with GPLv3 can use a free license."

My project is not an open source project; it is not even a software project. It is more of a (proprietary) electronic book in the form of a web site. But since the code (such as it is) won't be distributed, it's compatible with the GPL, which does not place any restrictions on mere use.

But this is not really the issue here. I filed this issue to point out an inconsistency between the code and the docs: either there is a bug in the code, or there is an error in the docs.

[alvarotrigo]

Docs updated to clarify the usage of the credits option 🥳
Basically, a valid licenseKey option is required. Commercial or open-source license.

My project is not an open source project; it is not even a software project. It is more of a (proprietary) electronic book in the form of a web site. But since the code (such as it is) won't be distributed, it's compatible with the GPL, which does not place any restrictions on mere use.

You might want to consult a lawyer specialized in licenses here, but as far as I understand, that's not correct because fullPage.js is a client-side component. This means that whenever it is used on a website, the JavaScript source code is distributed to users' browsers.
Under GPLv3, once the software is distributed, the recipient must receive the same rights, including access to the source code.

So, if the proprietary project integrates or modifies fullPage.js, then such a project must also be GPLv3 distributed and provide its source code under the GPLv3 license.

But again, I'd recommend your company double-check this with a lawyer.
The other option is to get a commercial license.

[rrthomas]

Docs updated to clarify the usage of the credits option 🥳 Basically, a valid licenseKey option is required. Commercial or open-source license.

In that case, I think it's a stretch to claim your code is distributed under the GPL. I suppose I could copy your code, change it to remove the requirement for a license key, and distribute that under the GPL, but that seems then that I have to take an extra step to claim my usual GPL freedoms, and of course I would then have to decide whether to put in extra work to keep my fork up to date.

You might want to consult a lawyer specialized in licenses here, but as far as I understand, that's not correct because fullPage.js is a client-side component. This means that whenever it is used on a website, the JavaScript source code is distributed to users' browsers. Under GPLv3, once the software is distributed, the recipient must receive the same rights, including access to the source code.

That's fine, all the JavaScript code in my pages is GPL'd or otherwise open source. The project as a whole is content-based, not code-based. I have written no JavaScript for it other than trivial configuration (which by most accounts is too short to qualify for copyright); the bulk of the work is in the content (which is not under a Creative Commons or similar license).