- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:49:26 +1000
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Daniel Berlin <dannyb at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > Yes, you do. Ah, that's interesting. >> 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, > :) > Again, that was specifically about ffmpeg as a component of Google > Chrome, not about Google Chrome as a whole. ? Licensing of projects > that use a lot of open source components with a lot of different > licenses is a complicated matter, since each component can have a > license that is separate than the license for the work as a whole. > I'm trying to make sure I am being as explicit as I can about what > each subject i am talking about is while still providing answers, so > that the answers are the actual answer, but as you can imagine, it's > tricky. ?It can be hard to differentiate between the questions people > want to know an answer that is more general than what they asked, and > those where they want to know just about that specific thing. ?When it > comes to matters like these, it's usually best for me to just answer > the question people actually asked explicitly, and let them ask > followups, than it is to try to anticipate what they really wanted to > know. ?It can come off as dodging at times, but i'm doing the best i > can ;) Glad you did, since I think this discussion has clarified a lot of things - at least for me. Thanks a lot! Regards, Silvia.
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 23:49:26 UTC