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

[Daniel Berlin]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Chris DiBona <cdibona at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
>>

That would be correct :)