- From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 23:51:58 -0400
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Daniel Berlin <dannyb at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Daniel Berlin <dannyb at google.com> wrote: >> [snip] >>>> ?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 >> For the avoidance of doubt, >> Are you stating that when an end user obtains Chrome from Google they >> do not receive any license to utilize the Google distributed FFMPEG >> code to practice the patented activities essential to H.264 and/or AAC >> decoding, which Google licenses for itself? > > I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply saying that any patent license > we may have does [not] cause our distribution of ffmpeg to violate the terms > of the LGPL 2.1 I now understand that your statement was only that Google's distribution of FFMPEG is not in violation of the LGPL due to patent licenses. Thank you for clarifying what you have stated. I will ask no further questions on that point. But I do have one further question: Can you please tell me if, when I receive Chrome from you, I also receive the patent licensing sufficient to use the Chrome package to practice the patents listed in MPEG-LA's 'essential' patent list for the decoding of H.264? I wouldn't want to break any laws. I believe I know the answer, based on your statement "No more or less ? than ? ffmpeg" as ffmpeg explicitly does not provide any patent licensing, but it seems surprising so I am asking for clarification. A simple yes or no will suffice. Thank you!
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 20:51:58 UTC