If i use "kdenlive" for editing my videos and if i use any font or artwork which comes up with kdenlive in my video so is the ouput video which i redered out from kdenlive also covers the same General Public Licenses and if yes then what i have to do to upload this video on youtube and monetize it because youtube only gives two liscence choices (standard youtube License)and(creative commons attribution License) they did not give any option for a general public License for the video and can i monetize my videos which i rendered from kdenlive???

GPL doesn't "contaminate" the outputs produced from the software, eg you can compile proprietary&commercial code with GCC.
So videos produced by Kdenlive, MLT, FFmpeg are entirely yours.

I don't know if YouTube gives you some money if you choose CC license - other youtubers, feedback ?

Yeah, gpl is a software license anyway, so no it couldn't apply to a produced video file.

The license you pick on youtube won't affect your ability to 'monitise' the video, but it may well affect your ability to make money off it, because by licensing the video under the cc license you allow anyone to modify and copy your video, so long as they say the original video was yours.

I am not sure here - he is asking about the fonts, not kdenlive itself or it's licence.
This could be licence-wise like using a stock photo or similar?

Kdenlive doesn't come with its own fonts. OP needs to check the specific font license.

Which artwork does Kdenlive with? What does artwork here mean specifically to the OP?

markoc wrote:I am not sure here - he is asking about the fonts, not kdenlive itself or it's licence.
This could be licence-wise like using a stock photo or similar?

Yes you are right because on GNU GPL liscence site the faq's about gnu liscence said that if the software covers its input to the output so the ouput of the program also covers the same liscence as the input in my case the input are the fonts.
here is the link of GNU GPL liscece faq: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... sOutputGPL

Here's probably a better summary than what we can explain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_font_exception

But not so much that we are embedding the fonts as using them as graphics.

Generally speaking, if it's packaged with a reasonably important Linux distribution it should be fine. If you download fonts yourself, you have to make sure the are properly licensed whether they are free or not.

I recall seeing a package somewhere for graphically making your own fonts... and honestly I just started hand drawing my titles in Krita (Animation Edition).

zekthedeadcow wrote:Here's probably a better summary than what we can explain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_font_exception

But not so much that we are embedding the fonts as using them as graphics.

Generally speaking, if it's packaged with a reasonably important Linux distribution it should be fine. If you download fonts yourself, you have to make sure the are properly licensed whether they are free or not.

I recall seeing a package somewhere for graphically making your own fonts... and honestly I just started hand drawing my titles in Krita (Animation Edition).

yes i m using a linux distribution which is "Linux Mint 17.3 " and I do not download any font i am using just the default fonts and the software I am using for editing my video is kdenlive which is GPL software i installed it from the software manager of my linux mint