W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2009

[whatwg] Google's use of FFmpeg in Chromium and Chrome

From: Daniel Berlin <dannyb@google.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:53:37 -0400
Message-ID: <2fbe2a060906020753m23ddd719u2dd6fdae8cdb0eef@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Chris DiBona <cdibona at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
>>

That would be correct :)
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 07:53:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:12 UTC