[Mplayer-users] (no subject)
nickols_k at mail.ru
Wed May 30 22:39:24 CEST 2001
On Tue, 29 May 2001 20:12:07 +0200, Gabucino wrote:
>Ehh, I don't understand your english, you mix it totally :)
>Same would happen when mixing licenses as you said. :)
Sorry for english. Below is the same after proofreading:
Why you don't want to distribute mplayer under complex licence?
Since mplayer consists from various parts of sources which are
distributed under different licence agreements you can license
your own parts of code under GPL and declare that some parts
of mplayer are distributed under their own licences. It's a right way.
The fact that mplayer-0.11 was distributed without licence does not
preserve you from responsibility for distribution of already licenced parts.
But you didn't violate any copyrights therefore you can continue to
distribute mplayer with the same set of parts but with a note that their
have different licence agreements.
mp3lib is distributed under LGPL and you can't change this licence.
In such cases the licence of mplayer don't cover the licences of its parts.
But if you are able to prove that you use "old" sources which were distributed
under GPL - then you are right. Anyway, you can license own part of code at
your opinion but not entire code. Best solution in this case is to put licence
agreements into each subfolder with original README of the imported libraries
and warn user about this. IMHO opendivx developers don't forbit distribution of
odivx library in the source. Simply place their licence in the odivx sufolder and
make warning in your licence about copyrights and copylefts.
Anyway you are free to apply any licence agreement to mplayer( not only GPL;)
and change it in the future:
for example - close the sources and sell mplayer for money, but in this case last
GPL'ed version of mplayer can be continued with developing by other people
under GPL. The same applies to parts of mplayer today.
OpenDivX licence says:
c. In each instance in which you attribute ownership or authorship of
the Codec you will include an acknowledgement in a location viewable
to users of the Codec as follows: "This product includes software
developed by or derived from software developed by Project Mayo." In
any event, the origin of the Codec must not be misrepresented; you
must not claim sole authorship in the Codec.
4. You may incorporate the Codec into a Larger Work and distribute
that Larger Work under terms of your choice, provided that:
"This product includes software developed by or derived from software
developed by Project Mayo."
It means that licence allows to distribute sources and incorpoprate them
to other projects with placing notes about this in viewable places.
But the fact that project contain software developed by Project Mayo is truth.
IMHO for GPL'ed code would be a good style to place notification
(probably in the source header) that it is not original sources of this project
and where user can download original (not modified) sources.
And the last argument:
I'm too author of other project. And I distribute my project under GPL.
But I'm free to change licence of some parts of my project from GPL
on LGPL and my project will contain 2 licence agreements:
for entire project and for one or several subfolder(s) separately.
So no problem.
Best regards! Nick
P.S.: As for me I do not use OpenDivX now. IMHO it is unusable.
I think that mplayer will not lose anything without this part.
Mplayer-users mailing list
Mplayer-users at lists.sourceforge.net
More information about the MPlayer-users