- From: Daniel Berlin <dannyb@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:53:37 -0400
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