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."
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.
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.
From the attached article I can gather that since FFMpeg uses the LGPL 2.1 (not 3.0) that their obtaining a third party license for something else that prohibits them from granting similar rights for that bit of code does not affect their ability to grant rights for use the FFMpeg libraries. As they put it:
The fact that Party B may have a patent license with an unrelated third-party is irrelevant as long as it doesn't prevent Party B from granting people the rights LGPL 2.1 requires they grant them (namely, only those rights it in fact received from Party A).
Again this all seems rather moot anyway. A lot of operating systems these days include FFMpeg libraries as well as the H.264 and AAC libraries (which is really what this is all about). I know people feel like the idea of linking native libraries from the OS (which may or may not be there) goes against the universality of the HTML5 video/audio spec (and I can't say I disagree), but it would seem that for something as ubiquitous and freely licensable as the FFMpeg libraries, this argument is a bit overblown.
Science will save us. The question is, will it destroy us first?
Nope, you've got it wrong. Chrome includes ffmpeg.
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020035.html
I think Google's relying on a technicality, but it's a significant one. In this case Google isn't the creator of the library, they received it from it's creator. So either it's creator could grant them an LGPL 2.1-compatible patent license, or the library can be distributed without a license, or it's creator couldn't have legally distributed the library to them. I think that, right or wrong, Google's probably on solid legal ground there. They didn't introduce the patented code into the library, they didn't create the library, so I don't think the law'll have much trouble allowing them to redistribute the code under the same terms and with the same rights as they got from it's creator.
I think it's a situation the GPL and LGPL don't contemplate explicitly. The situation where Google was adding the infringing code to a library they received under (L)GPL terms and then redistributing the results, that's exactly what the v2 language covers. But I'm not sure even the v3 language covers the situation where the holder of the patent license isn't the one who put the infringing code into the library and where the person who did put it in doesn't hold a patent license and has no rights to grant downstream recipients. If the library was under LGPL v3 I think you could make an argument that the automatic grant of rights in paragraph 11 kicks in, since Google does hold a relevant patent license, and that if their license doesn't let them do what paragraph 11 requires then they can't redistribute, but LGPL 2.1 doesn't contain anything explicit corresponding to v3's paragraph 11.
I think Google's right here, it does in fact come down to what the patent-holder says. If they sue Google and get an order blocking Google from distributing infringing code, then Google can't distribute the library. If the patent holders sue the library's author and get an order blocking distribution of the library without a patent license, Google can't distribute the library. But until then, Google can't be forced to add any rights that they didn't get when they received the library.
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.
IANAL (but I try to keep up on patent/copyright law), but here's how I think that would go:
gr8_phk: Here you are, sir. One compiled binary of FFMPEG, with source!
customer: Thanks!
patent_lawyer: Hold on there! You don't have a patent license; pay up gr8_phk!
gr8_phk: I don't need a license, Google gave me one since I got this off of Google.
patent_lawyer: Google didn't give you shit. Pay up!
Google: He's right, we didn't give you anything.
gr8_phk: Grr!
FFMPEG developers: Wait a tick there Google! You can only use our code if you give everyone who got the source from you a patent license. ...
Google: Well, that isn't the agreement we have with the patent holders. Sorry.
FFMPEG developers: Fair enough, our lawyers will be suing you for copyright infringement.
Google: Ha! You're going to sue us? I doubt it. We'll tie this up in court for years until you throw in the towel.
FFMPEG developers:
The Chrome people say that you're getting a patent license for H.264, etc. if you use Chrome. Fine.
The interesting question is "Does my patent license for H.264, etc. extend to any decoding, or only that done by Chrome?". Said in another way, is my patent license only good if I'm doing the decoding in Chrome or does it apply to decoding done by me? If it is the latter, then anyone who wants a patent license can just download Chrome -- now they have a free patent license.
You're misinterpreting the LGPL. The language quoted by /. above says
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.