Google Chrome's Inclusion of FFMpeg Vs. the LGPL

An anonymous reader writes "Google has recently added FFMpeg to Chrome to better support HTML5's video element. FFMpeg is licensed under LGPL 2.1, which states that 'if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Library by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Library.' Google admits to having obtained a patent license for their use, but still claims they are not violating LGPL. Among the confused we find Håkon Wium Lie and Miguel de Icaza, who wonders what FSF might say. Google doesn't feel like asking FSF for clarification."

Comments

Re:What's all this license crap anyway?

[Wrath0fb0b]

It isn't when it's inside of Chrome.

The LGPL expressly allows closed-source and even non-free-as-in-beer software to link to an LGPL library, either statically or dynamically, without violation of its terms. That's what makes it lesser than the GPL.

I agree with sentiment in the last link though, this is none of the FSF's business -- the FFMPEG people are the only ones that can claim to be aggrieved here. Until that happens, this is much ado about nothing since there can be no violation of license terms to which the holder of the copyright does not object.

Re:Seems to be some confusion here

[Wesley Felter]

Nope, you've got it wrong. Chrome includes ffmpeg.

http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020035.html

Re:Oh no! Also, what about xiph?

[rfuilrez]

Exactly. I'm taking the Mac beta for a test run as we speak. Some of the stuff is obviously still missing as noted in the recent article here a few days back. It works fairly well, and I look forward to replacing firefox with it.

Re:Terms of The Licences

[TheoMurpse]

Does my patent license for H.264 extend to any decoding, or only that done by Chrome?

Let's see the EULA for Chrome:

9. License from Google

9.1 Google gives you a personal, worldwide, royalty-free, non-assignable and non-exclusive license to use the software provided to you by Google as part of the Services as provided to you by Google (referred to as the âoeSoftwareâ below). This license is for the sole purpose of enabling you to use and enjoy the benefit of the Services as provided by Google, in the manner permitted by the Terms.

Re:Here's a scenario

[TheoMurpse]

You're misinterpreting the LGPL. The language quoted by /. above says

if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Library by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Library.

Now, imagine it this way:

Let A be some 3d party software covered by patents that is unrelated to FFMpeg. Let B be Chrome. Let C be FFMpeg. Google got a patent for A. The patent is unrelated to FFMpeg.

The LGPL says that if you cannot distribute C without patent royalties, then you cannot distribute C at all.

People are making one of two mistakes regarding this issue. They're either assuming that the patent Google has cover C (this is thanks to Slashdot's shitty summary that makes it sound like this, but Google points out quite clearly this is not the case) or they think the LGPL says that if any patent restricts the distribution of A contained in B, then you distribute C if it is contained in B. This is a poor interpretation of the above-quoted LGPL clause.

The last link I provided (http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020035.html) explains better than I the stance Google has taken. I think this stance is correct.

Disclaimer: I am merely a law school graduate. I have not taken the bar yet. I am not a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advice.