| |||||||||||||
(L)GPL vs. patents(L)GPL vs. patentsPosted Feb 3, 2010 15:59 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341)In reply to: (L)GPL vs. patents by DonDiego Parent article: Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the web
Are you saying that a patent licensor can continue to distribute a GPLed work
implementing that patent even when the licence is not passed on? That doesn't seem to in concordance with the GPL.. Though I can't tell if you're claiming that, or if you're just talking about the rights of the downstreams.
Where you seemed to be saying that non-licensees were unaffected (other
(Log in to post comments)
(L)GPL vs. patents Posted Feb 3, 2010 15:59 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
a patent licen/see/. Grr.
(L)GPL vs. patents Posted Feb 3, 2010 17:58 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
That's exactly what I'm saying. A patent licensee can continue distributing FFmpeg under the LGPL no matter what other side deals are in effect.
|
|||||||||||||