Looping in Dannyb (who may not be on the list, so if necessary, I'll forward) as I'm in the midst of a conference and can't give this the attention it deserves.
Chris On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Håkon Wium Lie <[email protected]> wrote: > Also sprach Chris DiBona: > > > To be clear, there are two situations here: > > > > Situation 1: > > > > (a) Party A gives Party B a library licensed under the LGPL 2.1 along > > with a patent license which says only Party B has the right to use it > > (b) Party B wants to distribute the library to others > > > > That's the situation the example in the LGPL 2.1 text is talking about > > and would likely be a violation. > > > > Situation 2: > > > > (a) Party A gives Party B a library licensed under the LGPL 2.1 > > (b) Party B gets a patent license from Party C > > (c) Party B then distribute the library under the LGPL 2.1 > > > > This situation is *not* prohibited by the LGPL 2.1 (see the LGPL 3.0 > > for a license that does deal with this situation). Under the LGPL > > 2.1, 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). > > Thanks for your willingness to discuss these matters. > > So, to be clear, you're saying that situation 2 applies in your case? > > -h&kon > Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª > [email protected] http://people.opera.com/howcome > -- Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com
