- From: Daniel Berlin <dannyb@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 20:50:12 -0400
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 7:52 PM, H?kon Wium Lie<howcome at opera.com> wrote: > This if statement seems to be true, and I therefore still don't > understand your reasoning. I've explained my position and reasoning, and we are going to have to agree to disagree, because it's clear neither of us are going to accept the other's viewpoint. My understanding of the example is consistent with the LGPL's goal statement at the start: "Therefore, we insist that any patent license obtained for a version of the library must be consistent with the full freedom of use specified in this license." The goal statement, at least to me, makes clear the example is talking about obtaining a patent license that covers the library directly, not that covers something that uses the library. However, let me ask *you* a question. Why do you rely on the example instead of the actual clause from that part of the conditions? You realize the example has roughly no legal effect, right? It does not add or modify the terms and conditions of the license. We can argue back and forth over what the example means all day, and it makes no difference. The clause being "11. If as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. 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. " Do you see any requirements in the actual legal clauses that you believe we violate? > I do appreciate your willingness not discuss these matters, though. Thanks. As I said, it's clear we won't convince everyone, --Dan
Received on Saturday, 6 June 2009 17:50:12 UTC