On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Chris DiBona <cdib...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <howc...@opera.com> 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? >>
That would be correct :)