- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:38:53 +1000
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Daniel Berlin <dannyb at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Chris DiBona <cdibona at gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > Which you can. > >> ?I would, however, get in trouble for not having paid patent >>> fees for doing so. > No more or less trouble than you would have gotten in had you gotten > it from ffmpeg instead of us, which combined with the fact that we do > not restrict any of your rights under the LGPL 2.1, is the important > part. Let me ask for more clarification here, since you seem to have a really good understanding of the legal implications. It seems to me that if I have decided for whatever reason (probably because I did not want to use a library that is likely to infringe on patents) that I did not want to have ffmpeg installed on my computer, and I installed Chrome, that in this case I would get a library installed on my computer without being aware of it. Or turned the other way - if I knew that Chrome comes with ffmpeg and I really didn't want ffmpeg installed on my computer, I could not use Chrome. Is this correct? I know full well that this is a theoretical example and that patent holders don't normally go after end users for patent infringements. However, I am asking for legal clarification and whether this has been thought through. Regards, Silvia.
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:38:53 UTC