Re: [codec] Conformance with unusual sample rates

[Gregory Maxwell <[e-mail]>]

John Ridges [[e-mail]]:
> Well, I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem right that a standard should
> invite you to use the reference implementation in a way that would
>violate its own IPR declarations. It makes me wonder if there are ways
> of inadvertently misusing the codec's API that would do so as well.

Obviously.

This is the purpose of language like: [warning generic language from an IPR
statement is contained in the paragraph below]

"Specification means, [...]
(b) any reference implementation (each, a “Reference Implementation”)
published by the IETF Codec Working Group in the request for comments
[...]  . Licensed patents [...] in the case of (b) above, use of the
reference implementation to the extent it infringes such patent"

My expectation is that the red light / green-light stuff is moot if  you are
using an IETF published reference implementation as is. This is the
reasonable and expected thing, and to the best of my knowledge it was
the intention of the parties that contributed to the process.

Other things are permitted as well, subject to the conformance
requirements, but if you want to be extra paranoid, and want to take
the easy way out, using the reference itself will cover you.

If you've found some reason to believe otherwise, please contact me
and I'll either point you to whatever you're missing or fuss at people
to get it fixed.  (This is a generic invitation, open to any and all comers, 
if there is too much interest I'll write a FAQ outside of the working
group or something…)