- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 07:19:30 +0200
Also sprach Chris DiBona: > To be clear, there are two situations here: > > Situation 1: > > (a) Party A gives Party B a library licensed under the LGPL 2.1 along > with a patent license which says only Party B has the right to use it > (b) Party B wants to distribute the library to others > > That's the situation the example in the LGPL 2.1 text is talking about > and would likely be a violation. > > Situation 2: > > (a) Party A gives Party B a library licensed under the LGPL 2.1 > (b) Party B gets a patent license from Party C > (c) Party B then distribute the library under the LGPL 2.1 > > This situation is *not* prohibited by the LGPL 2.1 (see the LGPL 3.0 > for a license that does deal with this situation). Under the LGPL > 2.1, the fact that Party B may have a patent license with an unrelated > third-party is irrelevant as long as it doesn't prevent Party B from > granting people the rights LGPL 2.1 requires they grant them (namely, > only those rights it in fact received from Party A). Thanks for your willingness to discuss these matters. So, to be clear, you're saying that situation 2 applies in your case? -h&kon H?kon Wium Lie CTO ??e?? howcome at opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 22:19:30 UTC