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

[Chris DiBona]

Looping in Dannyb (who may not be on the list, so if necessary, I'll
forward) as I'm in the midst of a conference and can't give this the
attention it deserves.

Chris

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome at opera.com> wrote:
> 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
>



-- 
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com