Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 1/7/10 9:46 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
> Andy:
> 
>>> Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working
>>> group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall
>>> attempt to adhere to the spirit of BCP 79.  This preference does not
>>> explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting encumbered technologies;
>>> such decisions will be made in accordance with the rough consensus of
>>> the working group.
>>
>> I appreciate the potential difficulty of guaranteeing the unencumbered
>> status of any output of this group. However, I would like this
>> statement to
>> be stronger, saying that this group will only produce a new codec if
>> it is
>> strongly believed by WG rough consensus to either be unencumbered,
>> or freely licensed by the IPR holder(s), if any.
> 
> I do not think that anyone wants the outcome to be yet another
> encumbered codec.  I think these words are trying to say what you want,
> but they are also trying to be realistic.
> 
> Does the following text strike a better balance?
> 
>   Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working
>   group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall
>   follow BCP 79, and adhere to the spirit of BCP 79.  The working
>   group cannot explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting
>   encumbered technologies; however, the working group will try to
>   avoid encumbered technologies that require royalties.

That seems reasonable. Although I was only the BoF co-chair, I'll
volunteer to hold the pen on edits to the proposed charter.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/