- From: Chris DiBona <cdibona@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 15:50:55 +0800
Looping in Dannyb (who may not be on the list, so if necessary, I'll forward) as I'm in the midst of a conference and can't give this the attention it deserves. Chris On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM, H?kon Wium Lie <howcome at opera.com> wrote: > 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 > -- Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 00:50:55 UTC