Sorry, but no
Posted Jun 11, 2009 10:34 UTC (Thu) by khim
In reply to: The LGPL and video codecs
Parent article: The LGPL and video codecs
For Chrome to fulfill the LGPL requirements, anyone getting
FFmpeg as part of Chrome must be able to extract FFmpeg and redistribute it
and derivative works without being sued by MPEG-LA.
What exactly gives you these rights? Do you really think Google
distributes FFmpeg under LGPL license? If so, you are dead wrong: Google
does no such thing. Google distributes Google Chrome, not
FFmpeg. It does not use LGPL when it does so - this is permitted by
clause 6 of LGPL: As an exception to the Sections above, you may also
combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce
a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work
under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification
of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for
debugging such modifications.
Chromium licenses (LGPL for WebKit, BSD for Google's own code, etc) sure
as hell permit midification of work for customer's own use and reverse
engineering for any purpose so Google is compliant. Since Google does not
distribute FFmpeg separately LGPL is not in play at all! Only two items of
LGPL are in play: main body of item 6 (it gives Google the right to
redistribute binary of FFmpeg in Chromium under Google's license,
not under LGPL) and 6b (this gives end-user the right to rip out
FFmpeg and use any other library in it's place).
Unfortunately, only FFmpeg contributors could sue Google for
that breach of LGPL, which would then make no one able to redistribute
Or they can switch to LGPLv3 (it closes this loophole).
to post comments)