[92hackathon] FW: [video-codec] The Can Has Landed

["Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[e-mail]>]

On 3/19/15, 10:33 AM, "Monty Montgomery" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hello to everyone interested in Daala, NetVC, and the run up to
>the netvc BoF on Tuesday at IETF92 in Dallas!
>
>While I'm mentioning the BoF I'd also like to remind folks that
>the Hackathon on Saturday and Sunday includes NetVC and a decent
>portion of our own Daala team will be there.  Physical attendance
>at the hackathon required registration that's already closed due
>to the limits of the room, but the Daala team will be in the
>#daala IRC channel on Freenode the whole time, pretty much like
>we always are... online participation is always welcome and
>encouraged!
>
>And now to the pep talk...
>
>In 2013, Cisco announced the OpenH264 licensing hack as a step
>toward ending a long-standing and frustratingly non-technical
>roadblock to WebRTC: h.264, though dominant, is unlicenseable
>by Free and Open Source entities.   I wrote at the time that although I
>supported the practical aspects of the OpenH264 deal, "Licensing
>caused this problem, and more licensing is not a solution. [...]
>We've merely kicked the can down the road and set a dangerous
>precedent for next time around."*
>
>We're now standing where the can takes its first bounce.
>
>NetVC is our collective opportunity to reverse that precedent and
>to give the Internet and Open Web the only fundamental Free
>technology it lacks: a fully modern video codec with no
>'permission required' strings attached.  The elevator pitch here
>is very simple: We must make for video what Opus is for audio.
>Video will never be a first-class citizen on the Net so long as
>it is only available to the 'haves' who are able to license the
>required commercial technology.
>
>Judging by the relative calm of the netvc mailing list, I don't
>think we (the proponets of netvc) face the same kind of
>controversy this time around as we did at the time of 'codec'
>BoFs.  That's a bit ironic, actually, as a video codec is a
>substantially more challenging technical undertaking.
>
>I do think there likely is some quiet skepticism-- there would
>have to be-- and so I'd like to invite the skeptics and Devil's
>Advocates to speak up here in the days before the BoF.  I doubt
>it will shorten the lines at the microphones, but perhaps the
>arguments will be more focused and better honed at that time.
>
>I'm not saying 'speak now or forever hold your peace'.  I'm just
>trying to shift the discussions that would normally start in
>a cramped uncomfortable room to the mailing list a little early.
>
>Cheers,
>Monty
>of Xiph Moz Daala
>
>* http://xiphmont.livejournal.com/61927.html
>
>_______________________________________________
>video-codec mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec