- From: Nils Dagsson Moskopp <nils-dagsson-moskopp@dieweltistgarnichtso.net>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:28:42 +0200
Am Dienstag, den 09.06.2009, 15:37 -0400 schrieb Donald R Robertson III via RT: > Would you mind summarizing the issue? I found a wall of text at the link > you provided, that presented a couple of different issues. My understanding is that Google has used the LGPL-2.1-licensed FFmpeg library to provide h.264 decoding in their closed-source Chrome Browser. They, however, seem to have to acquired a license from the MPEG LA so to not violate any patents. Now, does this license preclude them from distributing FFmpeg, possibly according to section 11 of the LGPL 2.1 ? Also, what if other software uses the FFmpeg library to decode h.264 - has the patent license of Google any effect on this ? This post on the list by Chris DiBona, Google's Open Source Programs Manager may give further insights to the debate: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020035.html Cheers (and many apologies for my poor legalese parsing skills) -- Nils Dagsson Moskopp <http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net>
Received on Monday, 15 June 2009 06:28:42 UTC