- From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 18:38:33 +0100
On 2 Jun 2009, at 02:58, Chris DiBona wrote: > One participant quoted one of the examples from the LGPL 2.1, which > says "For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free > redistribution of the Library by all those who receive copies directly > or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it > and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the > Library." I'm still unclear as to how this does not apply to Chrome's case. If I get a copy of Chrome, you are bound (by the LGPL) to provide me with a copy of the source ffmpeg, and I must be able to redistribute that in either binary or source form. I would, however, get in trouble for not having paid patent fees for doing so. Hence, as that example concludes, you cannot distribute ffmpeg whatsoever. -- Geoffrey Sneddon <http://gsnedders.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 10:38:33 UTC