Re: [codec] A concrete proposal for requirements and testing

[Ron <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 01:36:37PM -0700, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> On 4.9.2011 10:56 , "Kat Walsh" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> >On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> With hat:
> >
> >The same hat we're all wearing, the one that indicates "simply
> >speaking your own opinion"?
> 
> The official job title was something like "Advisor to IESG re IPR matters
> related to Codec WG".

Which part of your advise here was directed to the IESG?

> Note, though, that I was talking about "licensing deals", and that the
> context of this discussion has been that someone was arguing about
> knowledge (or lack thereof) of royalty-bearing licensing deals.  This has
> nothing to do with disclosures received.  (I don't have the exact
> quotation readily available, and I'm too lazy to look it up.)

That would have been Roni, repeating your query about whether Opus was
royalty-free, I guess.  After we'd already agreed, by your request and
hatted advice, that we not talk about that on this list.

But FTR, the answer is quite clearly still, yes it is.  You don't seriously
think that Xiph would have kept it a secret if some party had triggered the
termination clause in their own IPR grant, do you?

In the absence of news about that (not to mention other assurances given
directly to you on this list and at the Prague meeting), I think we can
safely conclude that there has been no such claim to date and Opus remains
as RF as any thing that royalties have never been collected on can be.
We don't have to pry into people's backroom deals at all to see that.

So let's drop the FUD about Scary Claims, and the bizarre claims about
transitive, questionable IPR states obligating us to test against codecs
that are clearly unsuitable for meeting the WG charter, and just get on
with the tedious task of trying to find out if any of the people currently
wasting our time with spurious circular arguments, actually have a point
that this group really needs to consider.

Because so far, we have a flood of vague handwavy claims about supposed
'alternative codecs', which aren't backed up by even the most rudimentary
standards of proof, and cries that the WG documents aren't satisfactory -
which aren't backed up by even pointing at the parts that are considered
unsatisfactory, let alone an explanation of what is actually supposed
to be unsatisfactory about them.  Which try as I might, I don't seem to
be able to glean even a single, simple, contribution to the advancement
of this group's charter from.  No matter how many times they are repeated
by the same people to the point of going "oh, uh, nevermind".  Again.

The last call is rolling.  If you have something of substance to add to
the work we have, please detail it precisely.  If you can't, the only
logical conclusion is that we have consensus from the non-obstructing
people on the current documents in their present form and nobody knows
how to improve them further yet.

I sincerely hope this isn't actually representative of the way that some
of these people work within the other SDO's they are a part of, because
that would be acutely embarrassing for both them, and their organisations.

When the supposed amateurs appear more professional than you do, making
sure you have the right hat on is the least of your problems.  It's too
late to pretend that Opus hasn't wiped the floor with pretty much every
other codec, and that the achievement of its developers isn't distinctly
remarkable.  It may not be too late to suck up your initial disdain and
disbelief in this group and salvage some self respect for both yourselves
and the organisations you inevitably represent to the world.

Remember all this is becoming a part of your permanent record, and part
of the internet history even.  So who wants to look like an engineer in
that story, and who wants to look like a cheap, inept saboteur?  It's
your last call to make that decision too. :>

Choose wisely,
Ron