[whatwg] Google's use of FFmpeg in Chromium and Chrome

Also sprach Daniel Berlin:

 > > 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

The example doesn't mention this as a requirement.

 > *and* our patent license doesn't even
 > say anything about the library used to do encoding/decoding.

The example doesn't mention this as a requirement, either. 

The example only has one "if statement":

   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.

This if statement seems to be true, and I therefore still don't
understand your reasoning.

I do appreciate your willingness not discuss these matters, though.


              H?kon Wium Lie                          CTO ??e??
howcome at opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome

Received on Saturday, 6 June 2009 16:52:05 UTC