[whatwg] Google's use of FFmpeg in Chromium and Chrome
Miguel de Icaza
miguel at novell.com
Sun Jun 7 17:36:31 PDT 2009
> In any case, I doubt its worth asking the fsf, since at least in the
> US, only the ffmpeg folks would have standing to enforce, so its
> their view that really matters.
The FSF might be able to provide some guidance on the intentions of
the license as this seems to be the bit that is confusing. Is the
example provided in the debated question part of the license or
not; But most importantly which one of the two interpretations is
the valid one. If your interpretation is correct, this opens a lot
of doors not only for Chromium but for plenty of other software (both
using ffmpeg and not using ffmpeg).
> I'd be interested in knowing what the ffmpeg folks think (for
> example, if they felt what we were doing was not right, I'm fairly
> positive we'd just switch to differently licensed libraries).
Right, if this is a problem, the fix is straight forward.
We went with a separate (and proprietary) implementation of the codecs
for Moonlight because we understood the license differently.
More information about the whatwg