On 13-01-2019 06:39 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 4:39 AM Gyan <ffm...@gyani.pro> wrote:
When someone submits a patch, it is implicit, unless stated otherwise,
that it is of their own initiative (and their own work), and thus they
are free to assign copyright. When work is performed for hire, the
copyright may belong to the employer. Such sponsored work cannot be
'donated' to the project
But we don't do copyright assignment.
No, the patch submitter (implicitly) does. Which is not a problem when
the copyright holder and submitter are the same person. For sponsored
code, they may not be.
Analogy:
Scenario 1
A 'vlogger' makes a video and uploads it as public to Youtube. Youtube
then lets everyone see that video. No problem.
Scenario 2
Someone pays the vlogger to make a video. Vlogger uploads it to YT as
public. There's a problem if the client did not allow that which makes
it copyright infringement, Which is why YT has this clause in their T&C
"You affirm, represent, and warrant that you own or have the necessary
licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to publish Content you
submit; and you license to YouTube all patent, trademark, trade secret,
copyright or other proprietary rights in and to such Content for
publication on the Service pursuant to these Terms of Service."
So, we are YT in this case and the Content is the patch(es). The concern
would be that the submitter doesn't have the right to license the code
into ffmpeg, if the contract with the client doesn't allow them to do
it. Only way to be sure is for the sponsor to affirm to it. And for
that, we would have to know that there is a sponsor, to start with.
Gyan
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
