- From: King InuYasha <ngompa13@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 16:34:35 -0500
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Daniel Berlin <dannyb at google.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM, King InuYasha<ngompa13 at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Daniel Berlin <dannyb at google.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, H?kon Wium Lie<howcome at opera.com> > wrote: > >> > 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. > >> As i've said in other messages, this example doesn't match this case > >> at all, since the patent license was not given to us by the same > >> people who gave us the library, *and* our patent license doesn't even > >> say anything about the library used to do encoding/decoding. I.E. Our > >> patent license has 0 to say about our distribution of ffmpeg, only > >> something to say about our distribution of Chrome, which is only > >> covered by section 6 of the LGPL 2.1 (which allows distribution under > >> whatever terms we choose so long as we meet certain requirements, > >> which we do). > >> > >> > 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? > >> > > >> That our patent license does not restrict/grant/say anything about > >> ffmpeg, only Google Chrome, and Google Chrome itself doesn't fall > >> under the LGPL 2.1 except through section 6. > >> > >> --Dan > > > > > > So are you saying you DO have a patent license for ffmpeg and Chrome? Or > > don't you? > Why are you conflating both of them together? > Our patent license covers user use of Chrome so they can play > H.264/AVC/etc. > It says nothing about ffmpeg. Zilch. Zero. > If you were to replace ffmpeg in Chrome with another decoder, our > patent license should still cover your use (I would have to double > check this, but this is my recollection). > > --Dan > Mainly because ffmpeg has way more than H.264 and other MPEG4 profile codecs. FFmpeg has a lot more than MPEG4 and MPEG2 and having licenses just for those might not be enough. You would be better off integrating xvid and x264 rather than ffmpeg. Of course, I am not a lawyer, so take my advice with a grain of salt. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090606/e9ae4936/attachment-0001.htm>
Received on Saturday, 6 June 2009 14:34:35 UTC