Livecode's CEF Builds

[Mark Waddingham]

On 2018-09-11 03:14, Monte Goulding via use-livecode wrote:
> To start with I think you need to ensure that building CEF with
> proprietary codecs enabled does not include anything that has a
> license that is incompatible with GPL 3. Otherwise you can’t
> distribute your standalone with the modified CEF under the GPL 3. FWIW
> I have built CEF with proprietary codecs and due to the complexity of
> chromium I would still need to spend a few days reviewing code to know
> exactly what was included when I did that. I do know there’s OpenH264
> in there which is BSD licensed.

Indeed - building a definitely non-GPLv3 encumbered libcef might require 
a fair bit more digging around and tweaking of flags.

> Then there’s whether the patents infringe on the GPL…  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well the GPLv3 certainly has a patent clause - 
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html - Section 11.

The first part seems quite clear - any contributor to a GPLv3 project 
automatically grants a 'patent license' to all recipients of the code 
for any patents they hold are are used by the code they contributed. 
i.e. If you own a patent, and make GPLv3 code available using it, then 
that code can be used freely (under GPLv3) terms.

My (IANAL) Interpretation: You can't release code under GPLv3 (as 
copyright holder and patent holder) which uses any patents you hold 
without also implicitly granting a license to use said patent as used by 
the code under GPLv3 terms.

The second part is less clear and is more applicable to this case. It 
sounds like if you knowingly convey a patent-encumbered GPLv3 code (even 
for patents you do not own) then you cannot both distribute the software 
under GPLv3, and allow restricted distribution of the project with a 
patent license - either you license for all potential recipients, or not 
at all.

My (IANAL) Interpretation: You cannot distribute *knowingly* 
patent-encumbered projects under GPLv3 in fashion where you license 
directly or indirectly the patents for some, but not for others.

e.g.

   1) I build a H264 player to which I do not own copyright for in 
entirety, and release the code under GPLv3 - this is fine, its just code 
- but no-one actually has the right to run it.

   2) I (or someone else) start distributing binaries of (1) without any 
patent license to anyone - this is fine GPLv3 wise, might not be fine 
MPEG LA patent license wise (if they count each person in receipt of a 
binary containing patent encumbered compiled code as a user).

   3) I (or someone else) offers (for a fee or not) some recipients of 
(2) the appropriate patent license - not fine GPLv3 wise as such 
licensing has to be for all, or for none, and probably not fine MPEG LA 
license wise as not all binaries are being licensed appropriately (again 
assuming MPEG LA license binaries in hands of users).

So a conservative interpretation would probably be that patents do not 
infringe on the GPLv3 per-se but, for all intents and purposes, GPLv3 
code which is encumbered by non-universally licensed/licensable patents 
can only ever be 'code only' and never run.

Methinks, avoiding knowingly patent-encumbered anything in LiveCode 
Community is probably the best thing to do :)

> FWIW if you can satisfy yourself that you aren’t infringing the GPL
> distributing the standalone with CEF built with proprietary codecs
> enabled then you should just be able to add some notes about that to
> include with your source like you would note that when distributed as
> a standalone it includes the LiveCode engine and where to find the
> source and build instructions for that etc… although again IANAL.

Apart from the issue of having a license to use the patent encumbered 
code - which is entirely orthogonal issue to licensing.

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

-- 
Mark Waddingham ~ mark at livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps