- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 22:35:06 +0200
Also sprach Daniel Berlin: > >>> "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." > Note that the actual *clause* (not the example) in question says > "If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your > obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, > then as a consequence you may not distribute the Library at all. " > It then gives the patent example as an example of when you could not > fulfill your obligations under the license. The restrictive license > in the example falls afoul of this condition (part of #10): "You may > not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the > rights granted herein." Nothing in any licenses we have with other > parties imposes any *further restrictions* on the recipients who get > ffmpeg from us. You get *exactly* the same set of rights and > obligations we got from ffmpeg. > As such, we can simultaneously satisfy our obligations under this > license (which again does not require us to pass along patent rights > we may have obtained elsewhere, it only requires we grant you the > rights you find in terms 0-16 and place no further restrictions on > you) and any patent licenses we may have, and do not run afoul of this > clause. I get parsing errors in my brain when reading this. While I understand that you do not impose any new restrictions (as per #10), I still don't understand how you can claim that #11 (the first two quotes above) has no relevance in your case. To me, it seems that the example in #11 (the first quote) matches this case exactly -- assuming that Google has a patent license that does not permit royalty-free redistribution. I also understand that the LGPL doesn't explicitly "require [anyone] to pass along patent rights we may have obtained elsewhere". However, it seems quite clear that the intention of #11 is to say that you cannot redistribute the code unless you do exactly that. What am I missing? -h&kon H?kon Wium Lie CTO ??e?? howcome at opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Saturday, 6 June 2009 13:35:06 UTC