- From: Chris DiBona <cdibona@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 08:20:15 +0800
Looping in Danny (in transit) On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar at googlemail.com> wrote: > > 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/> > > -- 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 17:20:15 UTC