Slashdot Mirror
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."
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
See that word "if"? The patent license permits royalty-free redistribution of the Library... so it's not an issue.
Similarly, we've heard nothing from the authors of the Library - you know, the copyright owners, the only ones who have any legal standing? So maybe the peanut gallery should shut the hell up already.
How we know is more important than what we know.
They are distributing the library under the terms of the LGPL with no additional restrictions and so are complying fully with the license. Whether or not they are violating their patent license by doing so is their problem.
The situation this clause of the LGPL is aimed at is one wherein Google would be obligated by their patent license to require that everyone they distributed the program to sign a patent sublicensing agreement that took away rights granted by the LGPL.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
On the other hand, DannyB is an intellectual property lawyer, and you aren't. Furthermore, "the ffmpeg folks" would include "any contributor to ffmpeg", so your point is moot.
You're confused. The author of the product doesn't have to abide by the license, they own the copyright and can do anything they want. The LGPL doesn't apply to them. It's perfectly legit for them to say, "hey, here is this code that implements patented algorithm X. if you want to use it you'll have to get your own license from the patent holder."
As far as this goes with the ffmpeg authors violating the patent by implementing this stuff in the first place, there is a certain amount of protection from patent litigation if you are doing research. Not as safe as having a license, but better than selling a blue-ray player without one. Additionally these developers are probably pretty close to judgment proof (ie. they mostly have no money to pay any judgments against them.)
It is unhelpful to a lot of people, probably. But writing software to follow the particularly idiotic US law in this regard ends up being unhelpful for way more people. Reflect on the fact that the whole US population is, in a global perspective, only a very loud minority...
Christ dude, if you're going to go car analogy, you have to go full-car. Leave out FFmpeg and MPEG and all that other confusing crap and just talk about cars.
Not sure why this was modded troll, since it's factually correct. Chromium is open source, yes, but Chrome itself is not. It's a fine distinction, and I'm not sure what parts of Chrome differ from Chromium, but I think the automatic updater service is not installed with Chromium, among a few other things. I think Chromium also lacks Google branding, probably for sticky copyright issues. Of course, the parts that use FFMpeg are probably open source, although we can't say for certain since the Chrome source is not available, but there's no reason why they should be different in Chrome than Chromium.
All your base are belong to Wii.
What's to stop me from writing a program that makes use of the copy of the codec installed by Chrome? I'm only using what the patent license said I could...
While you might be right, it would be unenforceable, and therefore irrelevant and meaningless. Kinda like the injunctions against DeCSS.
That's not true. It's possible to lock yourself out of the right to use your own copyright via a license through really shitty drafting of the license (or on purpose). If I recall correctly from my software licenses class (and I might not), the magic word "exclusive" is all that is needed in the grant clause and BAM, you can't use your own copyrighted work!
I am merely a law school graduate. I haven't taken the bar yet. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not your lawyer. This is not legal advice.
It matters what patents exist. If it is the position of the FFMpeg authors that the patent license that Google has obtained is actually required for royalty-free distribution, then nobody can redistribute FFMpeg at all.
Yeah, so...? That's just about the purpose of the licence, it doesn't say anything about how you can or can't use the software that's being licensed. If it said something like "you may use the software for the sole purpose of enjoying the benefit of the services...." it might be relevant. The whole paragraph is badly drafted anyway. "...license to use the software provided to you by Google as part of the Services as provided to you by Google..." is ambiguous.
Reflect on the fact that the whole US population is, in a global perspective, only a very loud minority with an extremely large economic footprint.
When you look at it from that angle, the population figures become much less relevant to the discussion.
For a commercial organisation maybe, but for open-source programmers in Europe no way. They will not say "I won't implement this interesting and useful codec because people in the USA might have legal problems using it" any more than Zimmermann would have said "I won't produce PGP because it may cause legal problems for people in France using it".
No, it's very helpful. Those of us outside the USA get to use the software, those of you inside the US get to go to your respective representatives and say 'look at these people outside the USA who can use this software and gain a competitive advantage over me! Change the law so that I can use it or we will not be able to compete and your tax revenues will drop!'
I am TheRaven on Soylent News