[whatwg] Google's use of FFmpeg in Chromium and Chrome
cdibona at gmail.com
Sat Jun 6 18:18:33 PDT 2009
At this point I feel like we're giving open source advice to teams
outside of Google, which is beyond our mission. We're comfortable with
our compliance mission and feel it is accurate and correct. Other
companies and people need to make their own decisions about
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Daniel Berlin<dannyb at google.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Daniel Berlin<dannyb at google.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Håkon Wium Lie<howcome at opera.com> wrote:
>>> This if statement seems to be true, and I therefore still don't
>>> understand your reasoning.
>> I've explained my position and reasoning, and we are going to have to
>> agree to disagree, because it's clear neither of us are going to
>> accept the other's viewpoint.
>> My understanding of the example is consistent with the LGPL's goal
>> statement at the start: "Therefore, we insist that any patent license
>> obtained for a version of the library must be consistent with the full
>> freedom of use specified in this license."
>> The goal statement, at least to me, makes clear the example is talking
>> about obtaining a patent license that covers the library directly, not
>> that covers something that uses the library.
> Missed a sentence somehow.
> My understanding of the example is also consistent with the actual
> legal clause in front of the example, and I use it to inform my
> position on the example. Taking a example from a paragraph out of the
> surrounding context and trying to claim it stands alone seems a bit
> strange to me, but i'm just a simple engilawyer.
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com
More information about the whatwg