[whatwg] Google's use of FFmpeg in Chromium and Chrome
Håkon Wium Lie
howcome at opera.com
Mon Jun 1 22:19:30 PDT 2009
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?
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
howcome at opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
More information about the whatwg