2026-09-06 21:54:11 -07:00
|
|
|
# LiveKit client-sdk-cpp redistribution notices
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This plugin links and **redistributes** prebuilt binaries from
|
|
|
|
|
[`livekit/client-sdk-cpp`](https://github.com/livekit/client-sdk-cpp) — the
|
|
|
|
|
`liblivekit` / `liblivekit_ffi` shared libraries that ship next to the plugin
|
|
|
|
|
module — so the SDK's licence and notice files ship with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
`LICENSE` and `NOTICE` here are copied verbatim from the pinned release tag
|
|
|
|
|
`v1.10.1` (Apache License 2.0). They are staged into `build/package/licenses/`
|
|
|
|
|
by `obs-adapter/CMakeLists.txt` on every build, alongside this plugin's own
|
2026-09-07 04:44:16 -07:00
|
|
|
Apache-2.0 `LICENSE` (this project's own first-party code was relicensed from
|
|
|
|
|
GPL-2.0 to Apache-2.0 to match).
|
2026-09-06 21:54:11 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## A correction to the design doc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The design doc's open questions say:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> `client-sdk-cpp`'s bundled `LICENSE.md` (~28 distinct third-party license
|
|
|
|
|
> blocks — Google WebRTC, OpenH264, etc.) must ship inside the plugin package
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**No such file exists at `v1.10.1`.** Checked, on 2026-09-06:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- The five release archives for this tag (`livekit-sdk-<triple>-1.10.1.tar.gz`
|
|
|
|
|
/ `.zip`) contain only `include/`, `lib/`, `bin/` and
|
|
|
|
|
`share/livekit/build-info.json`. No licence file of any kind.
|
|
|
|
|
- The repository at tag `v1.10.1` has `LICENSE` (Apache-2.0, 10142 bytes) and
|
|
|
|
|
`NOTICE` (553 bytes) at its root. There is no `LICENSE.md`, no `NOTICE.md`,
|
|
|
|
|
and no `THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES` file.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what ships here is the Apache-2.0 licence and notice, which is what
|
|
|
|
|
actually exists upstream. **The aggregated third-party notice the design doc
|
|
|
|
|
expected — covering the WebRTC/OpenH264/etc. code statically linked inside
|
|
|
|
|
`liblivekit_ffi.so` — has not been located and is not being shipped.** That
|
|
|
|
|
is a real, open licensing question for whoever signs off on distributing
|
|
|
|
|
release binaries, not something this packaging step has resolved. Worth
|
|
|
|
|
raising upstream, or asking counsel whether the Apache-2.0 NOTICE alone
|
|
|
|
|
suffices for a binary redistribution of that library.
|