Re: [whatwg] Google's use of FFmpeg in Chromium and Chrome Was: Re: MPEG-1 subset proposal for HTML5 video codec

[Daniel Berlin]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Daniel Berlin <dan...@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Daniel Berlin <dan...@google.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>>  I would, however, get in trouble for not having paid patent
>>>> fees for doing so.
>>> No more or less trouble than you would have gotten in had you gotten
>>> it from ffmpeg instead of us, which combined with the fact that we do
>>
>>
>> For the avoidance of doubt,
>>
>> Are you stating that when an end user obtains Chrome from Google they
>> do not receive any license to utilize the Google distributed FFMPEG
>> code to practice the patented activities essential to H.264 and/or AAC
>> decoding, which Google licenses for itself?
>
> I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply saying that any patent license
> we may have does
                              ^^^^^^ NOT
Sigh.