On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Patrick Matthäi <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 27.08.2012 22:12, schrieb Dan Dennedy: >> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Patrick Matthäi <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Am 27.08.2012 20:58, schrieb Murthy Avanithsa: >>>> Thank you very much for the quick response. >>>> >>>> We only need some of the utilities not all. If we compile the code using >>>> LGPL.. >>>> >>> >>>> 4) If we use MLT framework, do we need to display MLT framework some >>>> where on our media player or editor? >>> >>> No, but you are not allowed to remove copyright/license marks done by >>> the author. >> >> Actually, yes, you do. From section 6 of LGPL 2.1: "You must give >> prominent notice with each copy of the work that the Library is used >> in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License." >> and "If the work during execution displays copyright notices, you must >> include the copyright notice for the Library among them...." > > This is already done if you keep all copyright/license information from > the source in your copy,
Really? Is that how you read it? If you defer distribution of the source code to upon request and distribute binary by default, then copyrights in comment headers do not appear. > also additional files like COPYING e.g. are > good examples for it and with my sentence I just wanted to say this. I am not confident that simply including a library's source code or annotated COPYING files with the work is considered prominent. That is why the clause has the "the work during execution displays..." part. The classic example for that is an About dialog. Why take the risk? That is why a bunch of proprietary software have acknowledgements in their About dialogs or somewhere else. For example, Spotify has Help > Show Licenses. >> There is no single point of contact regarding the copyright for all of >> the code in MLT. The framework, core module, and some other modules >> are all copyright Ushodaya Enterprises Limited, but we no longer have >> a direct contact with them. Other modules have a variety of >> copyrights. And then there are the various dependencies that need >> consideration. So, a lawyer is definitely good advice if you need to >> make something proprietary. > > Copyright != license > Copyrights are much more complicated and uglier. Also each (applied) > patch submitter earns copyrights with most free licenses (which also > prevents license changes), but that is too much for this thread :) He asked about a contact for the license. The copyright holder of a component can make their component available under an alternate license. Otherwise, how would anyone know who is the licensor and who to contact? In the MLT project, there is no required copyright assignment agreement for contributors, but I consider that a patch submitter has only earned copyright if they are added as such in the comment header. -- +-DRD-+ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Mlt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mlt-devel
