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

[King InuYasha]

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Daniel Berlin <dannyb at google.com> wrote:

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

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090606/e9ae4936/attachment-0002.htm>