[whatwg] Google's use of FFmpeg in Chromium and Chrome

[Håkon Wium Lie]

Also sprach Chris DiBona:

 > To be clear, there are two situations here:
 > 
 > Situation 1:
 > 
 > (a) Party A gives Party B a library licensed under the LGPL 2.1 along
 > with a patent license which says only Party B has the right to use it
 > (b) Party B wants to distribute the library to others
 > 
 > That's the situation the example in the LGPL 2.1 text is talking about
 > and would likely be a violation.
 > 
 > Situation 2:
 > 
 > (a) Party A gives Party B a library licensed under the LGPL 2.1
 > (b) Party B gets a patent license from Party C
 > (c) Party B then distribute the library under the LGPL 2.1
 > 
 > This situation is *not* prohibited by the LGPL 2.1 (see the LGPL 3.0
 > for a license that does deal with this situation).  Under the LGPL
 > 2.1, the fact that Party B may have a patent license with an unrelated
 > third-party is irrelevant as long as it doesn't prevent Party B from
 > granting people the rights LGPL 2.1 requires they grant them (namely,
 > only those rights it in fact received from Party A).

Thanks for your willingness to discuss these matters.

So, to be clear, you're saying that situation 2 applies in your case?

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome at opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome