<p>You guys would probably be less confused if you actually stuck to the terms of the license instead of trying to parse the examples :)<br>
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.<br>
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).</p>
<p><blockquote type="cite">On Jun 7, 2009 2:08 PM, "Miguel de Icaza" <<a href="mailto:miguel@novell.com">miguel@novell.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>Hello,<p><font color="#500050">
> I also understand that the LGPL doesn't explicitly "require [anyone]
> to pass along patent righ...</font></p>
At this point, I am just as confused as Hakom.<br>
<br>
I am curious if someone has contacted the FSF for the interpretation of the LGPL in this particular case.<br>
<br>
It would make a lot of people's life easier if they could license patents from MPEG-LA and redistribute ffmpeg.<br>
<br>
We are on a similar situation with Moonlight where we ended up distributing proprietary codecs for VC1 (also MPEG-LA licensed) instead of the open source ffmpeg.<br>
<br>
Today our answer for those that want to use ffmpeg (and it is my personal choice as well, since I rather dogfood open source software) is to compile Moonlight from source code and use the ffmpeg code themselves instead of depending on proprietary codecs to be installed.<br>
<font color="#888888">
<br>
Miguel.<br>
</font></blockquote></p>