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

[Håkon Wium Lie]

Also sprach Daniel Berlin:

 > 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.

I'm a spec guy, not a lawyer. When we write specs, we typically insert
specific examples that help clarify the more general conditions in the
text. Often, an example will describe a common scenario and state, in
simple terms, the outcome.

To me, it seems that the LGPL is written the same way. The first two
sentences of #11 are general conditions. The third sentence contains a
specific example to help clarify what the more general conditions say. 

Current specs typically state that the examples are non-normative,
while the general statements are normative. I do not know if the same
rules apply to legal licenses -- LGPL itself doesn't say.

As to your question: I'm not really "relying" on anything. I've merely
said that I don't understand your interpretation of #11.

 > You guys would probably be less confused if you actually stuck to the terms
 > of the license instead of trying to parse the examples :)

The example in #11 seems fairly clear. Do you see any
incompatibilities between the example text and the general clauses?

Cheers,

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome at opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome