<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Daniel Berlin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dannyb@google.com">dannyb@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5">On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM, King InuYasha<<a href="mailto:ngompa13@gmail.com">ngompa13@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Daniel Berlin <<a href="mailto:dannyb@google.com">dannyb@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Håkon Wium Lie<<a href="mailto:howcome@opera.com">howcome@opera.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > Also sprach Daniel Berlin:<br>
>> ><br>
>> > > >>> "For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free<br>
>> > > >>> redistribution of the Library by all those who receive copies<br>
>> > directly<br>
>> > > >>> or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy<br>
>> > both it<br>
>> > > >>> and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution<br>
>> > of the<br>
>> > > >>> Library."<br>
>> ><br>
>> > > Note that the actual *clause* (not the example) in question says<br>
>> > > "If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your<br>
>> > > obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations,<br>
>> > > then as a consequence you may not distribute the Library at all. "<br>
>> > > It then gives the patent example as an example of when you could not<br>
>> > > fulfill your obligations under the license. The restrictive license<br>
>> > > in the example falls afoul of this condition (part of #10): "You may<br>
>> > > not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of<br>
>> > the<br>
>> > > rights granted herein." Nothing in any licenses we have with other<br>
>> > > parties imposes any *further restrictions* on the recipients who get<br>
>> > > ffmpeg from us. You get *exactly* the same set of rights and<br>
>> > > obligations we got from ffmpeg.<br>
>> > > As such, we can simultaneously satisfy our obligations under this<br>
>> > > license (which again does not require us to pass along patent rights<br>
>> > > we may have obtained elsewhere, it only requires we grant you the<br>
>> > > rights you find in terms 0-16 and place no further restrictions on<br>
>> > > you) and any patent licenses we may have, and do not run afoul of<br>
>> > this<br>
>> > > clause.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > I get parsing errors in my brain when reading this. While I understand<br>
>> > that you do not impose any new restrictions (as per #10), I still<br>
>> > don't understand how you can claim that #11 (the first two quotes<br>
>> > above) has no relevance in your case. To me, it seems that the example<br>
>> > in #11 (the first quote) matches this case exactly -- assuming that<br>
>> > Google has a patent license that does not permit royalty-free<br>
>> > redistribution.<br>
>> As i've said in other messages, this example doesn't match this case<br>
>> at all, since the patent license was not given to us by the same<br>
>> people who gave us the library, *and* our patent license doesn't even<br>
>> say anything about the library used to do encoding/decoding. I.E. Our<br>
>> patent license has 0 to say about our distribution of ffmpeg, only<br>
>> something to say about our distribution of Chrome, which is only<br>
>> covered by section 6 of the LGPL 2.1 (which allows distribution under<br>
>> whatever terms we choose so long as we meet certain requirements,<br>
>> which we do).<br>
>><br>
>> > I also understand that the LGPL doesn't explicitly "require [anyone]<br>
>> > to pass along patent rights we may have obtained elsewhere". However,<br>
>> > it seems quite clear that the intention of #11 is to say that you<br>
>> > cannot redistribute the code unless you do exactly that.<br>
>> > What am I missing?<br>
>> ><br>
>> That our patent license does not restrict/grant/say anything about<br>
>> ffmpeg, only Google Chrome, and Google Chrome itself doesn't fall<br>
>> under the LGPL 2.1 except through section 6.<br>
>><br>
>> --Dan<br>
><br>
><br>
> So are you saying you DO have a patent license for ffmpeg and Chrome? Or<br>
> don't you?<br>
</div></div>Why are you conflating both of them together?<br>
Our patent license covers user use of Chrome so they can play H.264/AVC/etc.<br>
It says nothing about ffmpeg. Zilch. Zero.<br>
If you were to replace ffmpeg in Chrome with another decoder, our<br>
patent license should still cover your use (I would have to double<br>
check this, but this is my recollection).<br>
<br>
--Dan<br>
</blockquote></div><br><div>Mainly because ffmpeg has way more than H.264 and other MPEG4 profile codecs. FFmpeg has a lot more than MPEG4 and MPEG2 and having licenses just for those might not be enough. You would be better off integrating xvid and x264 rather than ffmpeg. Of course, I am not a lawyer, so take my advice with a grain of salt.</div>