| |||||||||||||
(L)GPL vs. patents(L)GPL vs. patentsPosted Feb 3, 2010 16:02 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141)In reply to: (L)GPL vs. patents by mjw Parent article: Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the web
> > This is from the preamble of the LGPL. As it has no effect on the license itself and is in no way legally binding, it is best ignored.
>Of course it is not smart to ignore the text of the license. The preamble makes clear what the intent is of the legal clauses. In case their is any doubt how to interpret a particular clause one looks at the intent to see that "any patent license obtained for a version of the library must be consistent with the full freedom of use".
Sure? OK, let's try:
PREAMBLE
The book club is a non-profit, for-good, honest, no-nonsense organization that strives to bring its members peace, prosperity, happiness and easy access to their favorite books with absolutely no hooks attached
CONTRACT
666. (f) If you have read this far, we will now inform you that we will send you a few books per week at not exactly premium conditions. They will be a random choice of the old stuff we could not sell otherwise. You may not give them back and pay within three days.
Construct a slightly less contrived example if you wish, but still the fact remains: the preamble is not legally binding.
> > This just means that other contracts do not excuse you from the obligations of the LGPL. [...] Downstream recipients are not affected.
> Yes, but it does affect the (re)distributor. If they get a patent license, then they have to make sure that it covers not only themselves, but also all the recipients of any copies of the library.
No. BTW, the SFLC agrees with us.
(Log in to post comments)
(L)GPL vs. patents Posted Feb 3, 2010 16:49 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Can you provide a reference to SFLC's interpretation? I haven't
seen it
(L)GPL vs. patents Posted Feb 3, 2010 17:53 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
I can see if I get something in writing, it's all from talks with one of our devs that also lives in New York so far.
Much more importantly, this is the official interpretation of FFmpeg. Since we are the copyright owners, our interpretation is the one that matters. We still need to put that in writing.
(L)GPL vs. patents Posted Feb 4, 2010 16:00 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
If you want your claims to be taken seriously it needs to be in writing If
you are repeatedly going to refer to claims about SFLC's interpretation it would be beneficial to get it in writing as well
(L)GPL vs. patents Posted Feb 4, 2010 16:07 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
I am an FFmpeg copyright holder, so you already have a statement from me. We shall try to make something more official and put it on our website.
I would like you to provide me with the contrary interpretation in writing as well. You claim that the FSF has made statements to a different effect, but I never saw such a thing.
(L)GPL vs. patents Posted Feb 4, 2010 16:27 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Collectively a group making a statement is quite different from a single
copyright holder and I made no claims about FSF's interpretations You are confusing me with someone else
|
|||||||||||||