Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Chrome's Inclusion of FFMpeg Vs. the LGPL

Posted by timothy on from the to-make-one's-head-spin dept.

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."

4 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. Re:What's all this license crap anyway? by XanC · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's open source, what more do you want?

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

  2. Re:Oh Miguel by symbolset · · Score: 0, Troll

    Came here to say this, leaving satisfied.

    Seriosly, the guy's problem seems to be that the code doesn't violate any Microsoft patents.

    Maybe Google could work that in to shut him up.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  3. Google and the open source by 12357bd · · Score: 0, Troll

    That's another example of how Google is [ab]using open source.

    They only take the good part. Another example of the need to use the GPL v3 Affero version for any piece of code that could be used on internet.Starting by the Linux kernel and related utilities.

    --
    What's in a sig?
  4. Re:Opera enforcing the LGPL? by David+Gerard · · Score: 0, Troll

    Ah, this comment made it to wherever it is Opera fanboys gather?

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk