<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_07_2318210</id>
	<title>Google Chrome's Inclusion of FFMpeg Vs. the LGPL</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1244375640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Google has recently <a href="http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020035.html">added FFMpeg to Chrome</a> to better support HTML5's <a href="http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-February/009702.html">video element</a>. FFMpeg is licensed under <a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html">LGPL 2.1</a>, which states that '<em>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.</em>' Google <a href="http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020061.html">admits to having obtained a patent license for their use</a>, but still claims they are not violating LGPL. Among the confused we find <a href="http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020200.html">H&#229;kon Wium Lie</a> and <a href="http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020225.html">Miguel de Icaza</a>, who wonders what FSF might say. Google <a href="http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020226.html">doesn't feel like asking FSF for clarification</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 H   kon Wium Lie and Miguel de Icaza , who wonders what FSF might say .
Google does n't feel like asking FSF for clarification .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245691</id>
	<title>Relying on a technicality</title>
	<author>Todd Knarr</author>
	<datestamp>1244381700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Google 's relying on a technicality , but it 's a significant one .
In this case Google is n'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 could n't have legally distributed the library to them .
I think that , right or wrong , Google 's probably on solid legal ground there .
They did n't introduce the patented code into the library , they did n't create the library , so I do n'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 do n'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 is n't the one who put the infringing code into the library and where the person who did put it in does n'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 does n't let them do what paragraph 11 requires then they ca n't redistribute , but LGPL 2.1 does n'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 ca n'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 ca n't distribute the library .
But until then , Google ca n't be forced to add any rights that they did n't get when they received the library .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245777</id>
	<title>Re:And it doesn't</title>
	<author>Wesley Felter</author>
	<datestamp>1244382300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The patent license permits royalty-free redistribution of the Library</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.mpegla.com/avc/AVC\_TermsSummary.pdf" title="mpegla.com">I doubt that.</a> [mpegla.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>For branded encoder and decoder products sold both to end users and on an OEM basis for incorporation into personal computers but not part of an operating system, royalties per legal entity are 0 - 100,000 units per year = no royalty; US $0.20 per unit after first 100,000 units each year; above 5 million units per year, royalty = US $0.10 per unit.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The patent license permits royalty-free redistribution of the Library I doubt that .
[ mpegla.com ] For branded encoder and decoder products sold both to end users and on an OEM basis for incorporation into personal computers but not part of an operating system , royalties per legal entity are 0 - 100,000 units per year = no royalty ; US $ 0.20 per unit after first 100,000 units each year ; above 5 million units per year , royalty = US $ 0.10 per unit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patent license permits royalty-free redistribution of the Library I doubt that.
[mpegla.com] For branded encoder and decoder products sold both to end users and on an OEM basis for incorporation into personal computers but not part of an operating system, royalties per legal entity are 0 - 100,000 units per year = no royalty; US $0.20 per unit after first 100,000 units each year; above 5 million units per year, royalty = US $0.10 per unit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245753</id>
	<title>Re:And it doesn't</title>
	<author>Stumbles</author>
	<datestamp>1244382060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the peanut gallery did shut the hell up.... Slashdot would not exist. Come to think about it, Slashdot is the pachyderms heaven.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the peanut gallery did shut the hell up.... Slashdot would not exist .
Come to think about it , Slashdot is the pachyderms heaven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the peanut gallery did shut the hell up.... Slashdot would not exist.
Come to think about it, Slashdot is the pachyderms heaven.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246053</id>
	<title>RE: The Greater Evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244385180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Department of Homeland Security and all sub-departments and personages, are the Greater Evil; unleashed upon this world by George Walker Bush (who deserves death by hanging for Crimes Against Humanity), they must at all costs be removed from life itself; they Are the true evil in this world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Department of Homeland Security and all sub-departments and personages , are the Greater Evil ; unleashed upon this world by George Walker Bush ( who deserves death by hanging for Crimes Against Humanity ) , they must at all costs be removed from life itself ; they Are the true evil in this world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Department of Homeland Security and all sub-departments and personages, are the Greater Evil; unleashed upon this world by George Walker Bush (who deserves death by hanging for Crimes Against Humanity), they must at all costs be removed from life itself; they Are the true evil in this world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245417</id>
	<title>fp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244379420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>n/t</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>n/t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>n/t</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247461</id>
	<title>it doesn't matter what licenses they have obtained</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1244400780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It matters what patents exist.  If it is the position of the FFMpeg authors that the patent license that Google has obtained is actually required for royalty-free distribution, then nobody can redistribute FFMpeg at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It matters what patents exist .
If it is the position of the FFMpeg authors that the patent license that Google has obtained is actually required for royalty-free distribution , then nobody can redistribute FFMpeg at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It matters what patents exist.
If it is the position of the FFMpeg authors that the patent license that Google has obtained is actually required for royalty-free distribution, then nobody can redistribute FFMpeg at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248277</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244452860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FSF provides a definition for free software and the use of the word "free" follows that <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html" title="gnu.org" rel="nofollow">definition</a> [gnu.org].<br>How is that dishonest?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FSF provides a definition for free software and the use of the word " free " follows that definition [ gnu.org ] .How is that dishonest ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FSF provides a definition for free software and the use of the word "free" follows that definition [gnu.org].How is that dishonest?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245583</id>
	<title>(L)GPL is the only evil here..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244380920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Producing legal spagetti crapazola like that should be punishable by hanging by the nuts. F*** GPL. Go BSD, go free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Producing legal spagetti crapazola like that should be punishable by hanging by the nuts .
F * * * GPL .
Go BSD , go free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Producing legal spagetti crapazola like that should be punishable by hanging by the nuts.
F*** GPL.
Go BSD, go free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28249267</id>
	<title>Re:Relying on a technicality</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1244464560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As the other poster mentioned, it's a question of geography.  The upstream distributor in, say, France, gives Google a copy of the code.  This is legal, because the patents aren't valid in France.  Google then gives someone in the UK a copy.  Still valid.  Google gives someone in the USA a copy, and now they are in violation of the license.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As the other poster mentioned , it 's a question of geography .
The upstream distributor in , say , France , gives Google a copy of the code .
This is legal , because the patents are n't valid in France .
Google then gives someone in the UK a copy .
Still valid .
Google gives someone in the USA a copy , and now they are in violation of the license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the other poster mentioned, it's a question of geography.
The upstream distributor in, say, France, gives Google a copy of the code.
This is legal, because the patents aren't valid in France.
Google then gives someone in the UK a copy.
Still valid.
Google gives someone in the USA a copy, and now they are in violation of the license.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248243</id>
	<title>Google can write their own video decoders</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244452440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean how hard could it be for great google. Some hippies from EU did it. Google has both the money and the best programmers in the world, so we expect the google video encoders Beta in 3 months?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean how hard could it be for great google .
Some hippies from EU did it .
Google has both the money and the best programmers in the world , so we expect the google video encoders Beta in 3 months ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean how hard could it be for great google.
Some hippies from EU did it.
Google has both the money and the best programmers in the world, so we expect the google video encoders Beta in 3 months?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248693</id>
	<title>Surprised?</title>
	<author>vandan</author>
	<datestamp>1244457600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I <a href="http://entropy.homelinux.org/blog/?p=227" title="homelinux.org">predicted</a> [homelinux.org] this in my blog on that bastards a couple of days back. Simple solution: boycott them. The world has enough browsers controlled by monopolistic corporations already. Support Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I predicted [ homelinux.org ] this in my blog on that bastards a couple of days back .
Simple solution : boycott them .
The world has enough browsers controlled by monopolistic corporations already .
Support Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I predicted [homelinux.org] this in my blog on that bastards a couple of days back.
Simple solution: boycott them.
The world has enough browsers controlled by monopolistic corporations already.
Support Firefox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247309</id>
	<title>Re:Opera enforcing the LGPL?</title>
	<author>malevolentjelly</author>
	<datestamp>1244398620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds like an issue of cross-platform HTML 5 usage that is relevant to everyone involved. If you'll take some time to look at About:Opera sometime, you'll find Opera makes use of open source code, also.</p><p>Above anything else, Hakon is an open standards guy. Opera is part of the open standards community, simply not the open source community (unless you count things like dragonfly).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like an issue of cross-platform HTML 5 usage that is relevant to everyone involved .
If you 'll take some time to look at About : Opera sometime , you 'll find Opera makes use of open source code , also.Above anything else , Hakon is an open standards guy .
Opera is part of the open standards community , simply not the open source community ( unless you count things like dragonfly ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like an issue of cross-platform HTML 5 usage that is relevant to everyone involved.
If you'll take some time to look at About:Opera sometime, you'll find Opera makes use of open source code, also.Above anything else, Hakon is an open standards guy.
Opera is part of the open standards community, simply not the open source community (unless you count things like dragonfly).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248747</id>
	<title>Re:Oh Miguel</title>
	<author>El Lobo</author>
	<datestamp>1244458320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, seriously, what projects have YOU been involved on (Ms related or not) for the community? I mean, it's so easy to flame other people just because they are on the "wrong" (as politically incorrect on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.) projects where you, yourself do nothing at all. I mean I don't know you and I may be wrong, but something tells me that there is a BIG probability that I'm right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , seriously , what projects have YOU been involved on ( Ms related or not ) for the community ?
I mean , it 's so easy to flame other people just because they are on the " wrong " ( as politically incorrect on / .
) projects where you , yourself do nothing at all .
I mean I do n't know you and I may be wrong , but something tells me that there is a BIG probability that I 'm right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, seriously, what projects have YOU been involved on (Ms related or not) for the community?
I mean, it's so easy to flame other people just because they are on the "wrong" (as politically incorrect on /.
) projects where you, yourself do nothing at all.
I mean I don't know you and I may be wrong, but something tells me that there is a BIG probability that I'm right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246489</id>
	<title>Re:And it doesn't</title>
	<author>fishbowl</author>
	<datestamp>1244389560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Similarly, we've heard nothing from the authors of the Library - you know, the copyright owners, the only ones who have any<br>&gt;legal standing?</p><p>For all we know, they have an undisclosed relationship with Google and are laughing about all this noise.</p><p>&gt;So maybe the peanut gallery should shut the hell up already.</p><p>You might as well be screaming at city buses<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Similarly , we 've heard nothing from the authors of the Library - you know , the copyright owners , the only ones who have any &gt; legal standing ? For all we know , they have an undisclosed relationship with Google and are laughing about all this noise. &gt; So maybe the peanut gallery should shut the hell up already.You might as well be screaming at city buses : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Similarly, we've heard nothing from the authors of the Library - you know, the copyright owners, the only ones who have any&gt;legal standing?For all we know, they have an undisclosed relationship with Google and are laughing about all this noise.&gt;So maybe the peanut gallery should shut the hell up already.You might as well be screaming at city buses :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28251523</id>
	<title>Icaza as patent expert eh?</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1244478420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really wonder who really cares about what Icaza has to say about patents, large companies, shadowy use of LGPL.</p><p>I promise myself never to talk about Icaza and leave it to boycottnovell.org but somehow he really manages to troll me.</p><p>We all know Opera ASA is a closed source company, they claim it is their business model and it works so far. I can take their words very serious since they are the ones who managed to stand up against Microsoft instead of selling out to them and still claim they are the same company. Can we tell the same thing about Icaza guy and Novell? Come on really, one should really know when to shut up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really wonder who really cares about what Icaza has to say about patents , large companies , shadowy use of LGPL.I promise myself never to talk about Icaza and leave it to boycottnovell.org but somehow he really manages to troll me.We all know Opera ASA is a closed source company , they claim it is their business model and it works so far .
I can take their words very serious since they are the ones who managed to stand up against Microsoft instead of selling out to them and still claim they are the same company .
Can we tell the same thing about Icaza guy and Novell ?
Come on really , one should really know when to shut up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really wonder who really cares about what Icaza has to say about patents, large companies, shadowy use of LGPL.I promise myself never to talk about Icaza and leave it to boycottnovell.org but somehow he really manages to troll me.We all know Opera ASA is a closed source company, they claim it is their business model and it works so far.
I can take their words very serious since they are the ones who managed to stand up against Microsoft instead of selling out to them and still claim they are the same company.
Can we tell the same thing about Icaza guy and Novell?
Come on really, one should really know when to shut up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248915</id>
	<title>This is a non-issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244460540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not a complicated issue at all. Either ffmpeg requires patent license to use/redistribute or it doesn't. If it doesn't - no problem, nobody is in violation.</p><p>If it does then Google doesn't have a license to redistribute but neither do the authors! Hence, Google are supplying the source code under exactly the same terms so there is no ground for complaint for ffmepg's authors. The fact that Google, lets say for their own peace of mind, bought a license to use any relevant patents is frankly irrelevant and none of anyone else's business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a complicated issue at all .
Either ffmpeg requires patent license to use/redistribute or it does n't .
If it does n't - no problem , nobody is in violation.If it does then Google does n't have a license to redistribute but neither do the authors !
Hence , Google are supplying the source code under exactly the same terms so there is no ground for complaint for ffmepg 's authors .
The fact that Google , lets say for their own peace of mind , bought a license to use any relevant patents is frankly irrelevant and none of anyone else 's business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a complicated issue at all.
Either ffmpeg requires patent license to use/redistribute or it doesn't.
If it doesn't - no problem, nobody is in violation.If it does then Google doesn't have a license to redistribute but neither do the authors!
Hence, Google are supplying the source code under exactly the same terms so there is no ground for complaint for ffmepg's authors.
The fact that Google, lets say for their own peace of mind, bought a license to use any relevant patents is frankly irrelevant and none of anyone else's business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246341</id>
	<title>Re:Opera enforcing the LGPL?</title>
	<author>Lord Kano</author>
	<datestamp>1244388120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It makes perfect sense. It's unfair to have one company abiding by the rules, while another breaks them.</p><p>LK</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It makes perfect sense .
It 's unfair to have one company abiding by the rules , while another breaks them.LK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It makes perfect sense.
It's unfair to have one company abiding by the rules, while another breaks them.LK</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245819</id>
	<title>Re:Opera enforcing the LGPL?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244382900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you even read any of the messages on the mailing list?<br>Hakon is simply asking for their interpretation of the LGPL. He even says that he's not a lawyer and understands the LGPL in a different way, the way he's been trained, a spec guy. Icaza says that he's just as confused as Hakon.<br>How are his questions offtopic?</p><p>I think you're quite trollish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you even read any of the messages on the mailing list ? Hakon is simply asking for their interpretation of the LGPL .
He even says that he 's not a lawyer and understands the LGPL in a different way , the way he 's been trained , a spec guy .
Icaza says that he 's just as confused as Hakon.How are his questions offtopic ? I think you 're quite trollish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you even read any of the messages on the mailing list?Hakon is simply asking for their interpretation of the LGPL.
He even says that he's not a lawyer and understands the LGPL in a different way, the way he's been trained, a spec guy.
Icaza says that he's just as confused as Hakon.How are his questions offtopic?I think you're quite trollish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246269</id>
	<title>Re:Relying on a technicality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244387400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its its its my GOD!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its its its my GOD !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its its its my GOD!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246105</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be some confusion here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244385720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You probably shouldn't be seeing "emails" going back and forth.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You probably should n't be seeing " emails " going back and forth .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You probably shouldn't be seeing "emails" going back and forth.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246119</id>
	<title>Re:royalty free redistribution</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1244385840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's Chromium.  It does not include ffmpeg.  Chrome (which is not quite the same thing) does, and Chrome cannot in fact be redistributed without OK from Google last I checked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's Chromium .
It does not include ffmpeg .
Chrome ( which is not quite the same thing ) does , and Chrome can not in fact be redistributed without OK from Google last I checked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's Chromium.
It does not include ffmpeg.
Chrome (which is not quite the same thing) does, and Chrome cannot in fact be redistributed without OK from Google last I checked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246781</id>
	<title>Ugh google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244392260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pee pee</p><p>Doo doo</p><p>Google is a bad company</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pee peeDoo dooGoogle is a bad company</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pee peeDoo dooGoogle is a bad company</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246503</id>
	<title>Re:Relying on a technicality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244389620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>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.</p></div></blockquote><p>You're confused. The author of the product doesn't have to abide by the license, they own the copyright and can do anything they want. The LGPL doesn't apply to them. It's perfectly legit for them to say, "hey, here is this code that implements patented algorithm X. if you want to use it you'll have to get your own license from the patent holder."</p><p>As far as this goes with the ffmpeg authors violating the patent by implementing this stuff in the first place, there is a certain amount of protection from patent litigation if you are doing research. Not as safe as having a license, but better than selling a blue-ray player without one. Additionally these developers are probably pretty close to judgment proof (ie. they mostly have no money to pay any judgments against them.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Google 's relying on a technicality , but it 's a significant one .
In this case Google is n'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 could n't have legally distributed the library to them.You 're confused .
The author of the product does n't have to abide by the license , they own the copyright and can do anything they want .
The LGPL does n't apply to them .
It 's perfectly legit for them to say , " hey , here is this code that implements patented algorithm X. if you want to use it you 'll have to get your own license from the patent holder .
" As far as this goes with the ffmpeg authors violating the patent by implementing this stuff in the first place , there is a certain amount of protection from patent litigation if you are doing research .
Not as safe as having a license , but better than selling a blue-ray player without one .
Additionally these developers are probably pretty close to judgment proof ( ie .
they mostly have no money to pay any judgments against them .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.You're confused.
The author of the product doesn't have to abide by the license, they own the copyright and can do anything they want.
The LGPL doesn't apply to them.
It's perfectly legit for them to say, "hey, here is this code that implements patented algorithm X. if you want to use it you'll have to get your own license from the patent holder.
"As far as this goes with the ffmpeg authors violating the patent by implementing this stuff in the first place, there is a certain amount of protection from patent litigation if you are doing research.
Not as safe as having a license, but better than selling a blue-ray player without one.
Additionally these developers are probably pretty close to judgment proof (ie.
they mostly have no money to pay any judgments against them.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247571</id>
	<title>Re:Relying on a technicality</title>
	<author>Todd Knarr</author>
	<datestamp>1244402040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, but the author <i>is</i> offering terms and <i>will</i> be required by the courts to abide by them if/when anyone accepts them. If they put the code under the terms of the LPGL 2.1, then the courts won't let them refuse to make good on their offer once someone's accepted it. Note that copyright has nothing to do with patent rights, except that the courts will tend to take the position that if the copyright holder also held patent rights (or a patent license that allowed them the pass rights on to others) then when they offered someone else the right to redistribute the code (as they do by offering it under terms of the LGPL 2.1) they implicitly grant patent rights sufficient to legally enable that redistribution (which would include the right to use the patents and rights to sublicense the right-to-use).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but the author is offering terms and will be required by the courts to abide by them if/when anyone accepts them .
If they put the code under the terms of the LPGL 2.1 , then the courts wo n't let them refuse to make good on their offer once someone 's accepted it .
Note that copyright has nothing to do with patent rights , except that the courts will tend to take the position that if the copyright holder also held patent rights ( or a patent license that allowed them the pass rights on to others ) then when they offered someone else the right to redistribute the code ( as they do by offering it under terms of the LGPL 2.1 ) they implicitly grant patent rights sufficient to legally enable that redistribution ( which would include the right to use the patents and rights to sublicense the right-to-use ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but the author is offering terms and will be required by the courts to abide by them if/when anyone accepts them.
If they put the code under the terms of the LPGL 2.1, then the courts won't let them refuse to make good on their offer once someone's accepted it.
Note that copyright has nothing to do with patent rights, except that the courts will tend to take the position that if the copyright holder also held patent rights (or a patent license that allowed them the pass rights on to others) then when they offered someone else the right to redistribute the code (as they do by offering it under terms of the LGPL 2.1) they implicitly grant patent rights sufficient to legally enable that redistribution (which would include the right to use the patents and rights to sublicense the right-to-use).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247527</id>
	<title>Re:Relying on a technicality</title>
	<author>Todd Knarr</author>
	<datestamp>1244401680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're forgetting a few things. Both GPL v2 and v3 talk about granting the recipient rights to redistribute the license. If the author was the patent-holder or a licensee, then to grant people that license without granting patent rights would render those clauses meaningless. Without both rights to use the patent <i>and</i> some right to pass on those rights, the recipients can't exercise the redistribution rights the license purports to give them. Courts are loathe to declare terms of a license meaningless, so the typical reading of those kinds of clauses is that the grant of the right to redistribute implicitly includes all the other rights necessary for redistribution that the licensor has the ability to give out. So if the author was the author of the code and either held the patents or held patent licenses covering it that allow sublicensing, the courts are pretty likely to hold that they gave out rights to use the patents when they applied the GPL/LGPL to their code. They may not be subject to the license they give out themselves, but they <i>are</i> offering terms and the courts will require them to live up to their half of the deal if someone accepts their license.</p><p>But since Google isn't the author of the infringing code in this case, none of that's really applicable to them. It's only applicable to the FFMPEG authors. They aren't the patent-holders and they aren't licensees, so the only question is whether their initial distribution of their library constitutes patent infringement. I'm pretty sure a US court would consider it to be, but it looks like there's serious jurisdictional and logistical problems with actually getting an enforceable judgment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're forgetting a few things .
Both GPL v2 and v3 talk about granting the recipient rights to redistribute the license .
If the author was the patent-holder or a licensee , then to grant people that license without granting patent rights would render those clauses meaningless .
Without both rights to use the patent and some right to pass on those rights , the recipients ca n't exercise the redistribution rights the license purports to give them .
Courts are loathe to declare terms of a license meaningless , so the typical reading of those kinds of clauses is that the grant of the right to redistribute implicitly includes all the other rights necessary for redistribution that the licensor has the ability to give out .
So if the author was the author of the code and either held the patents or held patent licenses covering it that allow sublicensing , the courts are pretty likely to hold that they gave out rights to use the patents when they applied the GPL/LGPL to their code .
They may not be subject to the license they give out themselves , but they are offering terms and the courts will require them to live up to their half of the deal if someone accepts their license.But since Google is n't the author of the infringing code in this case , none of that 's really applicable to them .
It 's only applicable to the FFMPEG authors .
They are n't the patent-holders and they are n't licensees , so the only question is whether their initial distribution of their library constitutes patent infringement .
I 'm pretty sure a US court would consider it to be , but it looks like there 's serious jurisdictional and logistical problems with actually getting an enforceable judgment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're forgetting a few things.
Both GPL v2 and v3 talk about granting the recipient rights to redistribute the license.
If the author was the patent-holder or a licensee, then to grant people that license without granting patent rights would render those clauses meaningless.
Without both rights to use the patent and some right to pass on those rights, the recipients can't exercise the redistribution rights the license purports to give them.
Courts are loathe to declare terms of a license meaningless, so the typical reading of those kinds of clauses is that the grant of the right to redistribute implicitly includes all the other rights necessary for redistribution that the licensor has the ability to give out.
So if the author was the author of the code and either held the patents or held patent licenses covering it that allow sublicensing, the courts are pretty likely to hold that they gave out rights to use the patents when they applied the GPL/LGPL to their code.
They may not be subject to the license they give out themselves, but they are offering terms and the courts will require them to live up to their half of the deal if someone accepts their license.But since Google isn't the author of the infringing code in this case, none of that's really applicable to them.
It's only applicable to the FFMPEG authors.
They aren't the patent-holders and they aren't licensees, so the only question is whether their initial distribution of their library constitutes patent infringement.
I'm pretty sure a US court would consider it to be, but it looks like there's serious jurisdictional and logistical problems with actually getting an enforceable judgment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28271203</id>
	<title>Re:Opera enforcing the LGPL?</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1244540100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, Opera uses open-source software, contributes to open-source software, and actually published open-source software (Dragonfly is available under a BSD license, for example). Also, this is very relevant to HTML5 since it's about the video element. Nice rabid trolling, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Opera uses open-source software , contributes to open-source software , and actually published open-source software ( Dragonfly is available under a BSD license , for example ) .
Also , this is very relevant to HTML5 since it 's about the video element .
Nice rabid trolling , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Opera uses open-source software, contributes to open-source software, and actually published open-source software (Dragonfly is available under a BSD license, for example).
Also, this is very relevant to HTML5 since it's about the video element.
Nice rabid trolling, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245683</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be some confusion here</title>
	<author>Wesley Felter</author>
	<datestamp>1244381640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope, you've got it wrong. Chrome includes ffmpeg.</p><p><a href="http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020035.html" title="whatwg.org">http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020035.html</a> [whatwg.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , you 've got it wrong .
Chrome includes ffmpeg.http : //lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020035.html [ whatwg.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, you've got it wrong.
Chrome includes ffmpeg.http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020035.html [whatwg.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248891</id>
	<title>Re:Oh no! Also, what about xiph?</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1244460180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Theora isn't that great....</p></div><p>Perhaps that because the bulk of the [codec] OS community puts there time and effort into H.264 etc rather than theora. <br> <br>
I'm sure the licence holders like it quite a lot.... and like with mp3, when you can't resnably shift formats, they start serious enforcment..
<br> <br>
And then add fees for content produced with it too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Theora is n't that great....Perhaps that because the bulk of the [ codec ] OS community puts there time and effort into H.264 etc rather than theora .
I 'm sure the licence holders like it quite a lot.... and like with mp3 , when you ca n't resnably shift formats , they start serious enforcment. . And then add fees for content produced with it too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theora isn't that great....Perhaps that because the bulk of the [codec] OS community puts there time and effort into H.264 etc rather than theora.
I'm sure the licence holders like it quite a lot.... and like with mp3, when you can't resnably shift formats, they start serious enforcment..
 
And then add fees for content produced with it too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245797</id>
	<title>Read the fine references</title>
	<author>sjvn</author>
	<datestamp>1244382540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is in the clear here.</p><p>This is tempest in a tea-cup stuff.</p><p>Steven</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is in the clear here.This is tempest in a tea-cup stuff.Steven</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is in the clear here.This is tempest in a tea-cup stuff.Steven</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246551</id>
	<title>Re:royalty free redistribution</title>
	<author>compro01</author>
	<datestamp>1244390220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chromium is not the same thing as Chrome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chromium is not the same thing as Chrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chromium is not the same thing as Chrome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247415</id>
	<title>Re:Relying on a technicality</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1244400000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Anyone who has copyright in a work cannot violate their own license.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's not true. It's possible to lock yourself out of the right to use your own copyright via a license through really shitty drafting of the license (or on purpose). If I recall correctly from my software licenses class (and I might not), the magic word "exclusive" is all that is needed in the grant clause and BAM, you can't use your own copyrighted work!</p><p><b>I am merely a law school graduate. I haven't taken the bar yet. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not your lawyer. This is not legal advice.</b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who has copyright in a work can not violate their own license.That 's not true .
It 's possible to lock yourself out of the right to use your own copyright via a license through really shitty drafting of the license ( or on purpose ) .
If I recall correctly from my software licenses class ( and I might not ) , the magic word " exclusive " is all that is needed in the grant clause and BAM , you ca n't use your own copyrighted work ! I am merely a law school graduate .
I have n't taken the bar yet .
I 'm not a lawyer .
I 'm not your lawyer .
This is not legal advice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who has copyright in a work cannot violate their own license.That's not true.
It's possible to lock yourself out of the right to use your own copyright via a license through really shitty drafting of the license (or on purpose).
If I recall correctly from my software licenses class (and I might not), the magic word "exclusive" is all that is needed in the grant clause and BAM, you can't use your own copyrighted work!I am merely a law school graduate.
I haven't taken the bar yet.
I'm not a lawyer.
I'm not your lawyer.
This is not legal advice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245579</id>
	<title>Opera enforcing the LGPL?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244380920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I must say, it seemed more than a little<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... odd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... for the founder of a completely and utterly proprietary competitor to post off-topic messages to a mailing list trying to probe his direct competitor on their adherence to a free software license.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I must say , it seemed more than a little ... odd ... for the founder of a completely and utterly proprietary competitor to post off-topic messages to a mailing list trying to probe his direct competitor on their adherence to a free software license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must say, it seemed more than a little ... odd ... for the founder of a completely and utterly proprietary competitor to post off-topic messages to a mailing list trying to probe his direct competitor on their adherence to a free software license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245491</id>
	<title>Oh no! Also, what about xiph?</title>
	<author>TD-Linux</author>
	<datestamp>1244379960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
So, what you're telling us is that although all of us in the States have been using FFMpeg illegally without a license for years, when someone finally decides to try and be legal and purchase a license, now they are still in the wrong?
</p><p>
Sounds like the FFMpeg people need to start dual-licensing or something - from what I can tell they are OK with people obtaining licenses to use FFMpeg.
</p><p>
Of course, I'm still missing the biggest point here - since when do they need FFMpeg for HTML 5 support? It doesn't require any patented codecs, and they could always use DirectShow filters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what you 're telling us is that although all of us in the States have been using FFMpeg illegally without a license for years , when someone finally decides to try and be legal and purchase a license , now they are still in the wrong ?
Sounds like the FFMpeg people need to start dual-licensing or something - from what I can tell they are OK with people obtaining licenses to use FFMpeg .
Of course , I 'm still missing the biggest point here - since when do they need FFMpeg for HTML 5 support ?
It does n't require any patented codecs , and they could always use DirectShow filters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
So, what you're telling us is that although all of us in the States have been using FFMpeg illegally without a license for years, when someone finally decides to try and be legal and purchase a license, now they are still in the wrong?
Sounds like the FFMpeg people need to start dual-licensing or something - from what I can tell they are OK with people obtaining licenses to use FFMpeg.
Of course, I'm still missing the biggest point here - since when do they need FFMpeg for HTML 5 support?
It doesn't require any patented codecs, and they could always use DirectShow filters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28251675</id>
	<title>Re:Opera enforcing the LGPL?</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1244479260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't say a WORD about Opera and their right to discuss web standards. They earned that very right over years since the start, since the times people joked about them for not displaying non standard compliant sites good.</p><p>Being proprietary doesn't mean anything. I care about passing ACID 3 test, supporting web standards to a point that they would happily lose market share. They also FORCED MS to support standards. Your thousand hacks running non proprietary browser did any of these? What did they do except getting money from Google? Do you think cloning the evil proprietary, future mega patent troll dinosour's plugin in open source, missing their community linux release day because he was wondering around at Redmond, successfully dividing open source community gives Icaza the right to talk? Think again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't say a WORD about Opera and their right to discuss web standards .
They earned that very right over years since the start , since the times people joked about them for not displaying non standard compliant sites good.Being proprietary does n't mean anything .
I care about passing ACID 3 test , supporting web standards to a point that they would happily lose market share .
They also FORCED MS to support standards .
Your thousand hacks running non proprietary browser did any of these ?
What did they do except getting money from Google ?
Do you think cloning the evil proprietary , future mega patent troll dinosour 's plugin in open source , missing their community linux release day because he was wondering around at Redmond , successfully dividing open source community gives Icaza the right to talk ?
Think again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't say a WORD about Opera and their right to discuss web standards.
They earned that very right over years since the start, since the times people joked about them for not displaying non standard compliant sites good.Being proprietary doesn't mean anything.
I care about passing ACID 3 test, supporting web standards to a point that they would happily lose market share.
They also FORCED MS to support standards.
Your thousand hacks running non proprietary browser did any of these?
What did they do except getting money from Google?
Do you think cloning the evil proprietary, future mega patent troll dinosour's plugin in open source, missing their community linux release day because he was wondering around at Redmond, successfully dividing open source community gives Icaza the right to talk?
Think again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245861</id>
	<title>Google's explanation is quite clear and complete.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1244383260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>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.</p><p>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.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246095</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be some confusion here</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1244385600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop making sense, AKAImBatman.  You're gonna spoil all the fun of this thread before it even gets going.</p><p>We need to destroy Google immediately!  After all, what have they ever done for us?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop making sense , AKAImBatman .
You 're gon na spoil all the fun of this thread before it even gets going.We need to destroy Google immediately !
After all , what have they ever done for us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop making sense, AKAImBatman.
You're gonna spoil all the fun of this thread before it even gets going.We need to destroy Google immediately!
After all, what have they ever done for us?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28249923</id>
	<title>Are they including X264?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244470080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The H.264 library?  Last time I checked, that was GPL, not LGPL.   Complicateder and Complicateder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The H.264 library ?
Last time I checked , that was GPL , not LGPL .
Complicateder and Complicateder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The H.264 library?
Last time I checked, that was GPL, not LGPL.
Complicateder and Complicateder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247211</id>
	<title>Re:And it doesn't</title>
	<author>LingNoi</author>
	<datestamp>1244397300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This may come as a surprise to you however the slashdot community is made up of numerous individuals with their own differing opinions. Not everyone shares the same point of view which is why we're all here in the first place posting comments..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This may come as a surprise to you however the slashdot community is made up of numerous individuals with their own differing opinions .
Not everyone shares the same point of view which is why we 're all here in the first place posting comments. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may come as a surprise to you however the slashdot community is made up of numerous individuals with their own differing opinions.
Not everyone shares the same point of view which is why we're all here in the first place posting comments..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245551</id>
	<title>And it doesn't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244380620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>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</p></div><p>See that word "if"?  The patent license permits royalty-free redistribution of the Library... so it's not an issue.</p><p>Similarly, we've heard <i>nothing</i> 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.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>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 LibrarySee 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 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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 LibrarySee 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.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245679</id>
	<title>FFMpeg Libraries Seem to be Isolated</title>
	<author>Zerocool3001</author>
	<datestamp>1244381640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>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 <i>that</i> bit of code does not affect their ability to grant rights for use the FFMpeg libraries. As they put it:
<br>
<br>
<i>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).</i>
<br>
<br>

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.</htmltext>
<tokenext>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 does n'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 ca n'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 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248385</id>
	<title>What does free mean?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244453940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, you're not used to thinking. Never mind. Try to concentrate. Maybe sober up first though.</p><p>Here are two scenarios:</p><p>1) Give software away without restriction. Result: someone takes the code, incorporates it into their paid for product and using the revenue from their near monopoly blows the 'free' version out of the water. No more free version.</p><p>2) Give software away with only the restriction that you must do the same with any additions you make to it (and then, only if you distribute it). Result: software plus any additions which other people add, remain perpetually free. Big corporation has to write their own software if they want to keep it secret.</p><p>Whether or not it is a good idea to have so much freedom is another debate.</p><p>If you are to dim to see why scenario 2 is more free than scenario 1 then you are truly dim. Having the freedom to... err, take away the freedom is not a case of being more free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , you 're not used to thinking .
Never mind .
Try to concentrate .
Maybe sober up first though.Here are two scenarios : 1 ) Give software away without restriction .
Result : someone takes the code , incorporates it into their paid for product and using the revenue from their near monopoly blows the 'free ' version out of the water .
No more free version.2 ) Give software away with only the restriction that you must do the same with any additions you make to it ( and then , only if you distribute it ) .
Result : software plus any additions which other people add , remain perpetually free .
Big corporation has to write their own software if they want to keep it secret.Whether or not it is a good idea to have so much freedom is another debate.If you are to dim to see why scenario 2 is more free than scenario 1 then you are truly dim .
Having the freedom to... err , take away the freedom is not a case of being more free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, you're not used to thinking.
Never mind.
Try to concentrate.
Maybe sober up first though.Here are two scenarios:1) Give software away without restriction.
Result: someone takes the code, incorporates it into their paid for product and using the revenue from their near monopoly blows the 'free' version out of the water.
No more free version.2) Give software away with only the restriction that you must do the same with any additions you make to it (and then, only if you distribute it).
Result: software plus any additions which other people add, remain perpetually free.
Big corporation has to write their own software if they want to keep it secret.Whether or not it is a good idea to have so much freedom is another debate.If you are to dim to see why scenario 2 is more free than scenario 1 then you are truly dim.
Having the freedom to... err, take away the freedom is not a case of being more free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28251951</id>
	<title>Re:Oh no! Also, what about xiph?</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1244480880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason everyone puts energy into H.264 is because all their devices use H.264. My video camera records to H.264, most HD videos are H.264 last time I checked. It's simply putting energy into what gives the best return of your investment. Theora works on... a computer. And that's it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason everyone puts energy into H.264 is because all their devices use H.264 .
My video camera records to H.264 , most HD videos are H.264 last time I checked .
It 's simply putting energy into what gives the best return of your investment .
Theora works on... a computer .
And that 's it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason everyone puts energy into H.264 is because all their devices use H.264.
My video camera records to H.264, most HD videos are H.264 last time I checked.
It's simply putting energy into what gives the best return of your investment.
Theora works on... a computer.
And that's it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245507</id>
	<title>Where is the controversy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244380140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is obviously a grey area in the law.  It's not really spelled out very clearly for regular, intelligent people to parse properly so it can be interpreted in many ways.  Google's representative have said that if FFmpeg doesn't like what they're doing, they'll move to another library.</p><p>There's nothing controversial, Google isn't doing anything malicious, and they already have an exit strategy if the owners are upset about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is obviously a grey area in the law .
It 's not really spelled out very clearly for regular , intelligent people to parse properly so it can be interpreted in many ways .
Google 's representative have said that if FFmpeg does n't like what they 're doing , they 'll move to another library.There 's nothing controversial , Google is n't doing anything malicious , and they already have an exit strategy if the owners are upset about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is obviously a grey area in the law.
It's not really spelled out very clearly for regular, intelligent people to parse properly so it can be interpreted in many ways.
Google's representative have said that if FFmpeg doesn't like what they're doing, they'll move to another library.There's nothing controversial, Google isn't doing anything malicious, and they already have an exit strategy if the owners are upset about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245447</id>
	<title>Oh Miguel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244379660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not surprising that Miguel wants in on this.</p><p>What projects has he worked on in the past decade that didn't revolve around patents by Microsoft or others?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not surprising that Miguel wants in on this.What projects has he worked on in the past decade that did n't revolve around patents by Microsoft or others ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not surprising that Miguel wants in on this.What projects has he worked on in the past decade that didn't revolve around patents by Microsoft or others?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246029</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be some confusion here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244385000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>did you even rtfa?</htmltext>
<tokenext>did you even rtfa ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>did you even rtfa?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246337</id>
	<title>Re:Relying on a technicality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244388120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone who has copyright in a work cannot violate their own license.  They could create a license which says "you can only distribute this if you compute pi to the last digit".  Anyone who receives it wouldn't be allowed to distribute it (since the requirement is impossible), but they, being the creator could distribute it just fine.  The license only restricts other people.<br><br>If ffmpeg is under a license which says, basically, "you can only distribute this if you can pass on an impossible patent license", the creator can still distribute it without a patent license.  They would, of course still be violating the patent, but they wouldn't be violating the copyright.  A third party *would* be violating the copyright as well as the patent, and could be sued for copyright violation (permission to distribute only under impossible conditions means no permission).<br><br>&lt;i&gt;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.&lt;/i&gt;<br><br>The creator can always legally distribute the library to them (with respect to copyrights), even if the copyright license is impossible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who has copyright in a work can not violate their own license .
They could create a license which says " you can only distribute this if you compute pi to the last digit " .
Anyone who receives it would n't be allowed to distribute it ( since the requirement is impossible ) , but they , being the creator could distribute it just fine .
The license only restricts other people.If ffmpeg is under a license which says , basically , " you can only distribute this if you can pass on an impossible patent license " , the creator can still distribute it without a patent license .
They would , of course still be violating the patent , but they would n't be violating the copyright .
A third party * would * be violating the copyright as well as the patent , and could be sued for copyright violation ( permission to distribute only under impossible conditions means no permission ) .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 could n't have legally distributed the library to them.The creator can always legally distribute the library to them ( with respect to copyrights ) , even if the copyright license is impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who has copyright in a work cannot violate their own license.
They could create a license which says "you can only distribute this if you compute pi to the last digit".
Anyone who receives it wouldn't be allowed to distribute it (since the requirement is impossible), but they, being the creator could distribute it just fine.
The license only restricts other people.If ffmpeg is under a license which says, basically, "you can only distribute this if you can pass on an impossible patent license", the creator can still distribute it without a patent license.
They would, of course still be violating the patent, but they wouldn't be violating the copyright.
A third party *would* be violating the copyright as well as the patent, and could be sued for copyright violation (permission to distribute only under impossible conditions means no permission).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.The creator can always legally distribute the library to them (with respect to copyrights), even if the copyright license is impossible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245735</id>
	<title>Re:Oh no! Also, what about xiph?</title>
	<author>Wesley Felter</author>
	<datestamp>1244381940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, what you're telling us is that although all of us in the States have been using FFMpeg illegally without a license for years, when someone finally decides to try and be legal and purchase a license, now they are still in the wrong? Sounds like the FFMpeg people need to start dual-licensing or something</p></div><p>Exactly. Unfortunately, they'll probably just say <a href="http://ffmpeg.org/legal.html" title="ffmpeg.org">"we don't care about patents"</a> [ffmpeg.org] which doesn't help anyone.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, I'm still missing the biggest point here - since when do they need FFMpeg for HTML 5 support? It doesn't require any patented codecs, and they could always use DirectShow filters.</p></div><p>In reality Theora isn't that great and Google probably wants to save bandwidth, so they support H.264. Since XP/Vista includes no H.264 decoder, Google has to ship their own.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what you 're telling us is that although all of us in the States have been using FFMpeg illegally without a license for years , when someone finally decides to try and be legal and purchase a license , now they are still in the wrong ?
Sounds like the FFMpeg people need to start dual-licensing or somethingExactly .
Unfortunately , they 'll probably just say " we do n't care about patents " [ ffmpeg.org ] which does n't help anyone.Of course , I 'm still missing the biggest point here - since when do they need FFMpeg for HTML 5 support ?
It does n't require any patented codecs , and they could always use DirectShow filters.In reality Theora is n't that great and Google probably wants to save bandwidth , so they support H.264 .
Since XP/Vista includes no H.264 decoder , Google has to ship their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what you're telling us is that although all of us in the States have been using FFMpeg illegally without a license for years, when someone finally decides to try and be legal and purchase a license, now they are still in the wrong?
Sounds like the FFMpeg people need to start dual-licensing or somethingExactly.
Unfortunately, they'll probably just say "we don't care about patents" [ffmpeg.org] which doesn't help anyone.Of course, I'm still missing the biggest point here - since when do they need FFMpeg for HTML 5 support?
It doesn't require any patented codecs, and they could always use DirectShow filters.In reality Theora isn't that great and Google probably wants to save bandwidth, so they support H.264.
Since XP/Vista includes no H.264 decoder, Google has to ship their own.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245825</id>
	<title>Need a car analogy</title>
	<author>Quick Reply</author>
	<datestamp>1244382960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand this at all.</p><p>Could someone please put this into a car analogy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand this at all.Could someone please put this into a car analogy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand this at all.Could someone please put this into a car analogy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247257</id>
	<title>Re:Relying on a technicality</title>
	<author>dryeo</author>
	<datestamp>1244397780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're forgetting that some of these patents only apply to the USA.  So if in Hungary or wherever the developers reside doesn't recognize these patents then needing a license is mute.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're forgetting that some of these patents only apply to the USA .
So if in Hungary or wherever the developers reside does n't recognize these patents then needing a license is mute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're forgetting that some of these patents only apply to the USA.
So if in Hungary or wherever the developers reside doesn't recognize these patents then needing a license is mute.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246025</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1244385000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If the peanut gallery did shut the hell up.... Slashdot would not exist. Come to think about it, Slashdot is the pachyderms heaven.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the peanut gallery did shut the hell up.... Slashdot would not exist .
Come to think about it , Slashdot is the pachyderms heaven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the peanut gallery did shut the hell up.... Slashdot would not exist.
Come to think about it, Slashdot is the pachyderms heaven.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247787</id>
	<title>Which license is it and where's the conflict?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244491260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but this article doesnt make any sense to me. Can someone please explain the connection between google having obtained some license while distributing some software under lgpl?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but this article doesnt make any sense to me .
Can someone please explain the connection between google having obtained some license while distributing some software under lgpl ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but this article doesnt make any sense to me.
Can someone please explain the connection between google having obtained some license while distributing some software under lgpl?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248595</id>
	<title>Re:Oh no! Also, what about xiph?</title>
	<author>pizzach</author>
	<datestamp>1244456700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While not great and not officially in the spec yet, looks like Theora is doing it's job as the sub-standard least denominator codec.  It's been appearing in random preview Opera, Firefox and Chrome builds.  But given that H.264 is the spec and is as prevalent as it is, I can't see why they wouldn't include it either in Chrome.  I mean, that is what their current movies are encoded in for the HQ format.  Hopefully Theora will eventually replace mpeg though...</htmltext>
<tokenext>While not great and not officially in the spec yet , looks like Theora is doing it 's job as the sub-standard least denominator codec .
It 's been appearing in random preview Opera , Firefox and Chrome builds .
But given that H.264 is the spec and is as prevalent as it is , I ca n't see why they would n't include it either in Chrome .
I mean , that is what their current movies are encoded in for the HQ format .
Hopefully Theora will eventually replace mpeg though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While not great and not officially in the spec yet, looks like Theora is doing it's job as the sub-standard least denominator codec.
It's been appearing in random preview Opera, Firefox and Chrome builds.
But given that H.264 is the spec and is as prevalent as it is, I can't see why they wouldn't include it either in Chrome.
I mean, that is what their current movies are encoded in for the HQ format.
Hopefully Theora will eventually replace mpeg though...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248189</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>IBBoard</author>
	<datestamp>1244452080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The GPL is only a free license according to Richard Stallman's dishonest redefinition of the word "free."</p></div></blockquote><p>It's a good job that this story is about the LGPL then, the one that lets you link against and re-use the library freely as long as you don't edit it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The GPL is only a free license according to Richard Stallman 's dishonest redefinition of the word " free .
" It 's a good job that this story is about the LGPL then , the one that lets you link against and re-use the library freely as long as you do n't edit it ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GPL is only a free license according to Richard Stallman's dishonest redefinition of the word "free.
"It's a good job that this story is about the LGPL then, the one that lets you link against and re-use the library freely as long as you don't edit it ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245603</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be some confusion here</title>
	<author>spandex\_panda</author>
	<datestamp>1244381100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I noticed that google does give credit to ffmpeg on its "about" page, funnily enough I checked it out last night and clicked the ffmpeg link to read about what they had to say! So I think it <i>is</i> now included.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed that google does give credit to ffmpeg on its " about " page , funnily enough I checked it out last night and clicked the ffmpeg link to read about what they had to say !
So I think it is now included .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed that google does give credit to ffmpeg on its "about" page, funnily enough I checked it out last night and clicked the ffmpeg link to read about what they had to say!
So I think it is now included.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246741</id>
	<title>Re:Oh no! Also, what about xiph?</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1244391900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By the time FFMpeg got all the requisite signatures to dual-license, the patents would be expired.</p><p>(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing\_and\_patent\_issues" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">According to Wikipedia this debate becomes entirely academic in 2017.</a> [wikipedia.org])<br>(<a href="http://www.tunequest.org/a-big-list-of-mp3-patents/20070226/" title="tunequest.org" rel="nofollow">and this is the citation</a> [tunequest.org])</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By the time FFMpeg got all the requisite signatures to dual-license , the patents would be expired .
( According to Wikipedia this debate becomes entirely academic in 2017 .
[ wikipedia.org ] ) ( and this is the citation [ tunequest.org ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the time FFMpeg got all the requisite signatures to dual-license, the patents would be expired.
(According to Wikipedia this debate becomes entirely academic in 2017.
[wikipedia.org])(and this is the citation [tunequest.org])</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247291</id>
	<title>Simple solution</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1244398260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(FSF moderators, start your engines.  You'll want to mod this post down to -1, to make sure nobody sees it)</p><p>Mpeg AFAIK is a freely implementable spec.  Find a codec for it that uses the BSD license, or write one yourself.  Problem solved.</p><p>I never use GPL licensed software at all myself unless it is unavoidable, (gcc/gmake etc, unfortunately) for precisely this type of reason.</p><p>The GPL is only a free license according to Richard Stallman's dishonest redefinition  of the word "free."  I consider him a fundamentally dishonest individual, and the FSF an immoral organisation, and I do not support him or them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( FSF moderators , start your engines .
You 'll want to mod this post down to -1 , to make sure nobody sees it ) Mpeg AFAIK is a freely implementable spec .
Find a codec for it that uses the BSD license , or write one yourself .
Problem solved.I never use GPL licensed software at all myself unless it is unavoidable , ( gcc/gmake etc , unfortunately ) for precisely this type of reason.The GPL is only a free license according to Richard Stallman 's dishonest redefinition of the word " free .
" I consider him a fundamentally dishonest individual , and the FSF an immoral organisation , and I do not support him or them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(FSF moderators, start your engines.
You'll want to mod this post down to -1, to make sure nobody sees it)Mpeg AFAIK is a freely implementable spec.
Find a codec for it that uses the BSD license, or write one yourself.
Problem solved.I never use GPL licensed software at all myself unless it is unavoidable, (gcc/gmake etc, unfortunately) for precisely this type of reason.The GPL is only a free license according to Richard Stallman's dishonest redefinition  of the word "free.
"  I consider him a fundamentally dishonest individual, and the FSF an immoral organisation, and I do not support him or them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247459</id>
	<title>H&#229;kon is not a founder of Opera Software</title>
	<author>grandmofftarkin</author>
	<datestamp>1244400720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An early employee yes, an he worked with the two founders previously at Telenor but he is not one of the founders himself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An early employee yes , an he worked with the two founders previously at Telenor but he is not one of the founders himself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An early employee yes, an he worked with the two founders previously at Telenor but he is not one of the founders himself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247135</id>
	<title>Not a problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244396220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Russia, you don't need a patent license in order to use H.264 compression. Moreover, software patents and patents on algorithms are explicitly declared as invalid by the law. So, the patent clause in LGPL doesn't fire, and redistribution of ffmpeg is perfectly legal. As for the USA - it's their problem, after all. Developers of ffmpeg may just prohibit redistribution of ffmpeg in USA in order to avoid such legal questions. I don't care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Russia , you do n't need a patent license in order to use H.264 compression .
Moreover , software patents and patents on algorithms are explicitly declared as invalid by the law .
So , the patent clause in LGPL does n't fire , and redistribution of ffmpeg is perfectly legal .
As for the USA - it 's their problem , after all .
Developers of ffmpeg may just prohibit redistribution of ffmpeg in USA in order to avoid such legal questions .
I do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Russia, you don't need a patent license in order to use H.264 compression.
Moreover, software patents and patents on algorithms are explicitly declared as invalid by the law.
So, the patent clause in LGPL doesn't fire, and redistribution of ffmpeg is perfectly legal.
As for the USA - it's their problem, after all.
Developers of ffmpeg may just prohibit redistribution of ffmpeg in USA in order to avoid such legal questions.
I don't care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248067</id>
	<title>Google and the open source</title>
	<author>12357bd</author>
	<datestamp>1244494320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's another example of how Google is [ab]using open source.</p><p>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.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28252189</id>
	<title>liboggplay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244482080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why not consider using liboggplay for basis of implementation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why not consider using liboggplay for basis of implementation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why not consider using liboggplay for basis of implementation?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248163</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1244451900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Mpeg AFAIK is a freely implementable spec</i></p><p>This is not true. MPEG is covered by a variety of patents which may or may not be valid in a number of different countries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mpeg AFAIK is a freely implementable specThis is not true .
MPEG is covered by a variety of patents which may or may not be valid in a number of different countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mpeg AFAIK is a freely implementable specThis is not true.
MPEG is covered by a variety of patents which may or may not be valid in a number of different countries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28249251</id>
	<title>Re:Relying on a technicality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244464380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the love of God, please use "it's" appropriately (hint: it's not the possessive of it). Let Bob the Angry Flower <a href="http://www.angryflower.com/itsits.gif" title="angryflower.com" rel="nofollow">educate you</a> [angryflower.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the love of God , please use " it 's " appropriately ( hint : it 's not the possessive of it ) .
Let Bob the Angry Flower educate you [ angryflower.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the love of God, please use "it's" appropriately (hint: it's not the possessive of it).
Let Bob the Angry Flower educate you [angryflower.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245573</id>
	<title>mHOd up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244380860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>all parti3s it's thAt has lost To happen. My</htmltext>
<tokenext>all parti3s it 's thAt has lost To happen .
My</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all parti3s it's thAt has lost To happen.
My</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28250477</id>
	<title>I'm no expert but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244473080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me the root of Hakon's problem lies in ffmpeg itself.  Ffmpeg implements the patent-encumbered algorithms to decode audio/video.  Distribution of ffmpeg in countries where these technologies are not patent-encumbered is not a problem.  However, distribution in countries like the U.S. has patent-implications.</p><p>Google has apparently acquired a license from the patent-holder that allows them to distribute Chrome with support for playback.  However, their license makes no mention of the *implementation* or decoder that performs the playback, it simply absolves them of the patent-liability for playback.</p><p>So, they have the patent license from MPEG to distribute the functionality and the copyright license from ffmpeg to distribute the implementation.</p><p>It sounds like Hakon interprets the lgpl 2.1 to mean that they cannot distribute the implementation unless they grant their users both: a) the rights to use the functionality granted through the patent license *and* b) the right to redistribute the *patent license* alongside the copyright distribution rights granted by the implementation.</p><p>Google grants a, but not b, and they contend that the lgpl 2.1 does not require b.  Their patent license doesn't address the implementation, it simply grants rights to Chrome as a whole, whatever implementation it uses.</p><p>It seems to me that distributing any lgpl 2.1 code containing patent-encumbered inventions for which there is no territory-wide royalty-free license for the territory in which its patented violates not only the lgpl 2.1, but also violates the patent-holder's rights.  In this case, it seems dangerous to use the code.  More and more, I'm beginning to understand the argument for pragmatism over purity in free or open source code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me the root of Hakon 's problem lies in ffmpeg itself .
Ffmpeg implements the patent-encumbered algorithms to decode audio/video .
Distribution of ffmpeg in countries where these technologies are not patent-encumbered is not a problem .
However , distribution in countries like the U.S. has patent-implications.Google has apparently acquired a license from the patent-holder that allows them to distribute Chrome with support for playback .
However , their license makes no mention of the * implementation * or decoder that performs the playback , it simply absolves them of the patent-liability for playback.So , they have the patent license from MPEG to distribute the functionality and the copyright license from ffmpeg to distribute the implementation.It sounds like Hakon interprets the lgpl 2.1 to mean that they can not distribute the implementation unless they grant their users both : a ) the rights to use the functionality granted through the patent license * and * b ) the right to redistribute the * patent license * alongside the copyright distribution rights granted by the implementation.Google grants a , but not b , and they contend that the lgpl 2.1 does not require b. Their patent license does n't address the implementation , it simply grants rights to Chrome as a whole , whatever implementation it uses.It seems to me that distributing any lgpl 2.1 code containing patent-encumbered inventions for which there is no territory-wide royalty-free license for the territory in which its patented violates not only the lgpl 2.1 , but also violates the patent-holder 's rights .
In this case , it seems dangerous to use the code .
More and more , I 'm beginning to understand the argument for pragmatism over purity in free or open source code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me the root of Hakon's problem lies in ffmpeg itself.
Ffmpeg implements the patent-encumbered algorithms to decode audio/video.
Distribution of ffmpeg in countries where these technologies are not patent-encumbered is not a problem.
However, distribution in countries like the U.S. has patent-implications.Google has apparently acquired a license from the patent-holder that allows them to distribute Chrome with support for playback.
However, their license makes no mention of the *implementation* or decoder that performs the playback, it simply absolves them of the patent-liability for playback.So, they have the patent license from MPEG to distribute the functionality and the copyright license from ffmpeg to distribute the implementation.It sounds like Hakon interprets the lgpl 2.1 to mean that they cannot distribute the implementation unless they grant their users both: a) the rights to use the functionality granted through the patent license *and* b) the right to redistribute the *patent license* alongside the copyright distribution rights granted by the implementation.Google grants a, but not b, and they contend that the lgpl 2.1 does not require b.  Their patent license doesn't address the implementation, it simply grants rights to Chrome as a whole, whatever implementation it uses.It seems to me that distributing any lgpl 2.1 code containing patent-encumbered inventions for which there is no territory-wide royalty-free license for the territory in which its patented violates not only the lgpl 2.1, but also violates the patent-holder's rights.
In this case, it seems dangerous to use the code.
More and more, I'm beginning to understand the argument for pragmatism over purity in free or open source code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247231</id>
	<title>Re:FFMpeg Libraries Seem to be Isolated</title>
	<author>dryeo</author>
	<datestamp>1244397480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As of today (revision 19134) you can configure it like so</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...<br>Configuration options:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; --enable-gpl             allow use of GPL code, the resulting libs<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; and binaries will be under GPL [no]<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; --enable-version3        upgrade (L)GPL to version 3 [no]<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; --enable-nonfree         allow use of nonfree code, the resulting libs<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; and binaries will be unredistributable [no]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>The version 3 stuff was added a couple of days ago to allow linking against some apache code and the nonfree may be gone tomorrow if they remove support for libamr.<br>Default is lgpl v2.1.<br>BTW it is spelled FFmpeg</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As of today ( revision 19134 ) you can configure it like so ...Configuration options : .. .     --enable-gpl allow use of GPL code , the resulting libs                                                       and binaries will be under GPL [ no ]     --enable-version3 upgrade ( L ) GPL to version 3 [ no ]     --enable-nonfree allow use of nonfree code , the resulting libs                                                       and binaries will be unredistributable [ no ] ...The version 3 stuff was added a couple of days ago to allow linking against some apache code and the nonfree may be gone tomorrow if they remove support for libamr.Default is lgpl v2.1.BTW it is spelled FFmpeg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As of today (revision 19134) you can configure it like so ...Configuration options: ...
    --enable-gpl             allow use of GPL code, the resulting libs
                                                      and binaries will be under GPL [no]
    --enable-version3        upgrade (L)GPL to version 3 [no]
    --enable-nonfree         allow use of nonfree code, the resulting libs
                                                      and binaries will be unredistributable [no] ...The version 3 stuff was added a couple of days ago to allow linking against some apache code and the nonfree may be gone tomorrow if they remove support for libamr.Default is lgpl v2.1.BTW it is spelled FFmpeg
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246421</id>
	<title>Re:And it doesn't</title>
	<author>Overly Critical Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1244388720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright owners?  According to Slashdot, copyright law is wrong and piracy is okay.  Hell, this website supports the "pirate party" of Sweden.  So Google can distribute all it wants according to Slashdotters, because the GPL is a copyright license that requires copyright law in order to be enforceable.</p><p>Which is it, Slashdotters?  If copyright law is wrong, then nobody has to follow the GPL.  You can't pick and choose which parts of copyright you want to serve you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright owners ?
According to Slashdot , copyright law is wrong and piracy is okay .
Hell , this website supports the " pirate party " of Sweden .
So Google can distribute all it wants according to Slashdotters , because the GPL is a copyright license that requires copyright law in order to be enforceable.Which is it , Slashdotters ?
If copyright law is wrong , then nobody has to follow the GPL .
You ca n't pick and choose which parts of copyright you want to serve you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright owners?
According to Slashdot, copyright law is wrong and piracy is okay.
Hell, this website supports the "pirate party" of Sweden.
So Google can distribute all it wants according to Slashdotters, because the GPL is a copyright license that requires copyright law in order to be enforceable.Which is it, Slashdotters?
If copyright law is wrong, then nobody has to follow the GPL.
You can't pick and choose which parts of copyright you want to serve you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245457</id>
	<title>Seems to be some confusion here</title>
	<author>AKAImBatman</author>
	<datestamp>1244379840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the emails I saw flying back and forth, only <b>Chromium</b> links against FFMPEG. Chromium is an OSS version of Chrome and thus leaves it to the user to have necessary patent rights when linking in FFMPEG.</p><p><b>Chrome</b> is a different beast. Google claims that it links against the native video/audio library to handle multimedia functions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the emails I saw flying back and forth , only Chromium links against FFMPEG .
Chromium is an OSS version of Chrome and thus leaves it to the user to have necessary patent rights when linking in FFMPEG.Chrome is a different beast .
Google claims that it links against the native video/audio library to handle multimedia functions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the emails I saw flying back and forth, only Chromium links against FFMPEG.
Chromium is an OSS version of Chrome and thus leaves it to the user to have necessary patent rights when linking in FFMPEG.Chrome is a different beast.
Google claims that it links against the native video/audio library to handle multimedia functions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248899</id>
	<title>Re:And it doesn't</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1244460360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>we've heard nothing from the authors of the Library..</p></div><p>They are irrelevant as its not their "technology". However the patent holders are a different matter entirely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we 've heard nothing from the authors of the Library..They are irrelevant as its not their " technology " .
However the patent holders are a different matter entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we've heard nothing from the authors of the Library..They are irrelevant as its not their "technology".
However the patent holders are a different matter entirely.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247169</id>
	<title>Re:And it doesn't</title>
	<author>dryeo</author>
	<datestamp>1244396640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I gather from lurking on the FFmpeg developers list, they care about being credited and the source being available including modifications. Basically the terms of the lgpl v2.1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I gather from lurking on the FFmpeg developers list , they care about being credited and the source being available including modifications .
Basically the terms of the lgpl v2.1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I gather from lurking on the FFmpeg developers list, they care about being credited and the source being available including modifications.
Basically the terms of the lgpl v2.1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28249385</id>
	<title>Re:Relying on a technicality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244465940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, as I understand it, this is the big question....</p><p>If I get a copy of Chrome (with FFMPEG) from Google, can I use/redistribute/modify that copy of FFMPEG in my own software in the US?</p><p>If I can't, I can see two possible reasons:<br>1. The LGPL has a bug (accidental or intentional) in it, allowing Google to redistribute LGPL code which I can't legally use.<br>2. Google is violating the LGPL and/or its patent license because it doesn't have the right to grant me the same patent rights.</p><p>So, what is it?  Buggy LGPL or patent law conundrum?</p><p>Oh, a third question...a lot of people grumble "Only FFMPEG developers have standing to sue".  If I'm presented with the LGPL as an EULA (many programs show the GPL or LGPL with an Accept/Decline button, EULA-style) and it says "you are entitled to a copy of the source code; in exchange, you promise not to distribute it outside of the terms of the LGPL"...wouldn't that count a a license agreement that gives me standing?  I can't sue for copyrigt infringment, but could I sue under contract law?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , as I understand it , this is the big question....If I get a copy of Chrome ( with FFMPEG ) from Google , can I use/redistribute/modify that copy of FFMPEG in my own software in the US ? If I ca n't , I can see two possible reasons : 1 .
The LGPL has a bug ( accidental or intentional ) in it , allowing Google to redistribute LGPL code which I ca n't legally use.2 .
Google is violating the LGPL and/or its patent license because it does n't have the right to grant me the same patent rights.So , what is it ?
Buggy LGPL or patent law conundrum ? Oh , a third question...a lot of people grumble " Only FFMPEG developers have standing to sue " .
If I 'm presented with the LGPL as an EULA ( many programs show the GPL or LGPL with an Accept/Decline button , EULA-style ) and it says " you are entitled to a copy of the source code ; in exchange , you promise not to distribute it outside of the terms of the LGPL " ...would n't that count a a license agreement that gives me standing ?
I ca n't sue for copyrigt infringment , but could I sue under contract law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, as I understand it, this is the big question....If I get a copy of Chrome (with FFMPEG) from Google, can I use/redistribute/modify that copy of FFMPEG in my own software in the US?If I can't, I can see two possible reasons:1.
The LGPL has a bug (accidental or intentional) in it, allowing Google to redistribute LGPL code which I can't legally use.2.
Google is violating the LGPL and/or its patent license because it doesn't have the right to grant me the same patent rights.So, what is it?
Buggy LGPL or patent law conundrum?Oh, a third question...a lot of people grumble "Only FFMPEG developers have standing to sue".
If I'm presented with the LGPL as an EULA (many programs show the GPL or LGPL with an Accept/Decline button, EULA-style) and it says "you are entitled to a copy of the source code; in exchange, you promise not to distribute it outside of the terms of the LGPL"...wouldn't that count a a license agreement that gives me standing?
I can't sue for copyrigt infringment, but could I sue under contract law?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245419</id>
	<title>What's all this license crap anyway?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244379420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's open source, what more do you want?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's open source , what more do you want ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's open source, what more do you want?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245745</id>
	<title>It's FFmpeg</title>
	<author>relaxed</author>
	<datestamp>1244382000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not FFMpeg!

That is all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not FFMpeg !
That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not FFMpeg!
That is all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245595</id>
	<title>royalty free redistribution</title>
	<author>umeboshi</author>
	<datestamp>1244381040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there really an issue here?  Is it impossible to freely redistribute Chrome?  According to this page:</p><p><a href="http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html" title="google.com">http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html</a> [google.com]</p><p>It seems that anybody can redistribute the code and/or binaries, with the possible exception of the parts that are trademarked (similar to Mozilla).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there really an issue here ?
Is it impossible to freely redistribute Chrome ?
According to this page : http : //code.google.com/chromium/terms.html [ google.com ] It seems that anybody can redistribute the code and/or binaries , with the possible exception of the parts that are trademarked ( similar to Mozilla ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there really an issue here?
Is it impossible to freely redistribute Chrome?
According to this page:http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html [google.com]It seems that anybody can redistribute the code and/or binaries, with the possible exception of the parts that are trademarked (similar to Mozilla).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248093</id>
	<title>Re:Relying on a technicality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244494560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if you want to use it you'll have to get your own license from the patent holder</p></div><p>that would be a nice way to circumvent all patent problems<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just push them over to your users!</p><p>if all your users are developers you might get away with that, but i doubt it is going to be like that in this case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you want to use it you 'll have to get your own license from the patent holderthat would be a nice way to circumvent all patent problems ... just push them over to your users ! if all your users are developers you might get away with that , but i doubt it is going to be like that in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you want to use it you'll have to get your own license from the patent holderthat would be a nice way to circumvent all patent problems ... just push them over to your users!if all your users are developers you might get away with that, but i doubt it is going to be like that in this case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246449</id>
	<title>Re:And it doesn't</title>
	<author>laughingcoyote</author>
	<datestamp>1244389200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>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</p></div><p>See that word "if"?  The patent license permits royalty-free redistribution of the Library... so it's not an issue.</p><p>Similarly, we've heard <i>nothing</i> 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.</p></div><p>By <i>any</i> downstream user whatsoever, and any possible one downstream from them? Even if I were to download this library from Google and resell it for profit? Even if IBM were to do the same?</p><p>If Google really does have me, and IBM, and any other possible reuser covered for distribution of any possible type, that's fine. Otherwise, if there are conceivable circumstances under which a patent could prohibit a downstream user from redistribution, they're violating the license. I don't know what's so hard about the terms here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>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 LibrarySee 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.By any downstream user whatsoever , and any possible one downstream from them ?
Even if I were to download this library from Google and resell it for profit ?
Even if IBM were to do the same ? If Google really does have me , and IBM , and any other possible reuser covered for distribution of any possible type , that 's fine .
Otherwise , if there are conceivable circumstances under which a patent could prohibit a downstream user from redistribution , they 're violating the license .
I do n't know what 's so hard about the terms here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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 LibrarySee 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.By any downstream user whatsoever, and any possible one downstream from them?
Even if I were to download this library from Google and resell it for profit?
Even if IBM were to do the same?If Google really does have me, and IBM, and any other possible reuser covered for distribution of any possible type, that's fine.
Otherwise, if there are conceivable circumstances under which a patent could prohibit a downstream user from redistribution, they're violating the license.
I don't know what's so hard about the terms here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28253125</id>
	<title>Re:Opera enforcing the LGPL?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244485860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I must say, it seemed more than a little<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... odd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... for the founder of a completely and utterly proprietary competitor to post off-topic messages to a mailing list trying to probe his direct competitor on their adherence to a free software license.</p></div><p>Not really. Opera uses some LGPL libraries itself, so they have a vested interest in this -if they stick to a more strict interpretation, and Google chooses a more liberal one, then Google has the upper hand.</p><p>Also, the issue here is ffmpeg, and it may be that Opera would also like to use it the way Google does to enable more codecs for &lt;video&gt;. However, they are reluctant to do so because of the legal problems associated with patents and LGPL, which Google now claims aren't there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I must say , it seemed more than a little ... odd ... for the founder of a completely and utterly proprietary competitor to post off-topic messages to a mailing list trying to probe his direct competitor on their adherence to a free software license.Not really .
Opera uses some LGPL libraries itself , so they have a vested interest in this -if they stick to a more strict interpretation , and Google chooses a more liberal one , then Google has the upper hand.Also , the issue here is ffmpeg , and it may be that Opera would also like to use it the way Google does to enable more codecs for .
However , they are reluctant to do so because of the legal problems associated with patents and LGPL , which Google now claims are n't there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must say, it seemed more than a little ... odd ... for the founder of a completely and utterly proprietary competitor to post off-topic messages to a mailing list trying to probe his direct competitor on their adherence to a free software license.Not really.
Opera uses some LGPL libraries itself, so they have a vested interest in this -if they stick to a more strict interpretation, and Google chooses a more liberal one, then Google has the upper hand.Also, the issue here is ffmpeg, and it may be that Opera would also like to use it the way Google does to enable more codecs for .
However, they are reluctant to do so because of the legal problems associated with patents and LGPL, which Google now claims aren't there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248321</id>
	<title>Re:And it doesn't</title>
	<author>Ed Avis</author>
	<datestamp>1244453280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The patent license permits royalty-free redistribution of the Library...</p></div></blockquote><p>Really?  So all that Fedora and other US-based Linux distributions must do to ship ffmpeg legally is to include Google Chrome (either the Windows version or some future Linux release) and use the ffmpeg library (or DLL) from that?  Great news!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The patent license permits royalty-free redistribution of the Library...Really ?
So all that Fedora and other US-based Linux distributions must do to ship ffmpeg legally is to include Google Chrome ( either the Windows version or some future Linux release ) and use the ffmpeg library ( or DLL ) from that ?
Great news !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patent license permits royalty-free redistribution of the Library...Really?
So all that Fedora and other US-based Linux distributions must do to ship ffmpeg legally is to include Google Chrome (either the Windows version or some future Linux release) and use the ffmpeg library (or DLL) from that?
Great news!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245551</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28249267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28251951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28253125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28249385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28251675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28249251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28271203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2318210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2318210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28251675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28253125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28271203
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2318210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248067
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2318210.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246421
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247169
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2318210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245735
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248243
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248891
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28251951
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248595
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2318210.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28249385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246503
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247527
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28249267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28249251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246337
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247415
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2318210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248747
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2318210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28249923
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2318210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245745
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2318210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245861
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2318210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245419
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2318210.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28248189
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2318210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246119
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2318210.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247461
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2318210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28247231
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2318210.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28246029
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2318210.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245825
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2318210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2318210.28245417
</commentlist>
</conversation>
