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

[Daniel Berlin]

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Håkon Wium Lie<howcome at opera.com> wrote:

> This if statement seems to be true, and I therefore still don't
> understand your reasoning.

I've explained my position and reasoning, and we are going to have to
agree to disagree, because it's clear neither of us are going to
accept the other's viewpoint.

My understanding of the example is consistent with the LGPL's goal
statement at the start: "Therefore, we insist that any patent license
obtained for a version of the library must be consistent with the full
freedom of use specified in this license."
The goal statement, at least to me, makes clear the example is talking
about obtaining a patent license that covers the library directly, not
that covers something that uses the library.

However, let me ask *you* a question.
Why do you rely on the example instead of the actual clause from that
part of the conditions?
You realize the  example has roughly no legal effect, right? It does
not add or modify the terms and conditions of the license.
We can argue back and forth over what the example means all day, and
it makes no difference.

The clause being "11. If as a consequence of a court judgment or
allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited
to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court
order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this
License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License.
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. "

Do you see any requirements in the actual legal clauses that you
believe we violate?

> I do appreciate your willingness not discuss these matters, though.
Thanks.
As I said, it's clear we won't convince everyone,

--Dan