Z
Ich habe einfach mal beim Entwickler nachgefragt, er schrieb folgendes:
Zitat von Chris Robinson:
Hi!
Zuzu_Typ schrieb:
I'm actually German, therefore it is especially hard reading the License
Information.
So here is what I think I have to do:
1. The usual, don't claim it's my work, etc.
2. Put the license info somewhere in my distribution (in my case it is
currently in a text file "LICENSE.TXT" ) - with license info I mean the
contents of "COPYING" in GitHub
3. Supply a link to the license (GNU LGPL 2.0).
4. Use OpenAL Soft as a dynamic library, (.DLL), that can be modified by
the end user.
5. Supply a "written offer" to cantact me, in order to receive a full
machine-readable source code (event though I don't know what they mean by
machine-readable).
As far as I know, this is fine. Note though that you don't actually need to do Step 3. If you actually supply the license, you don't need to provide a link to it. In regards to Step 5, I don't believe you need to supply the source code yourself; as long as it's unmodified, it should be enough to link to openal-soft.org or the git repo, and they can get the source at either of those places.
Standard caveat, I'm not a lawyer. But as the main developer of OpenAL Soft, that's my understanding of the LGPL.
Ich habe mich einige Zeit in die Lizenz eingelesen bevor ich in der OpenAL Mailing List nachgefragt habe und habe jetzt bin ich mir sicher, wie ich vorgehen muss.
Also wie oben erwähnt, muss ich die generellgültigen Urheberrechte usw. befolgen, meinem "Werk" die Lizenz beifügen und die Bibliothek in der von Maschinen lesbaren Form (in diesem Fall OpenAL.dll) mitliefern.
Danke für die Unterstützung und frohes Coding!
Und ab dafür.
--Zuzu_Typ--
