Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
Jean-Marc Valin <jean-marc.valin@usherbrooke.ca> Sat, 09 January 2010 02:44 UTC
Return-Path: <jean-marc.valin@usherbrooke.ca>
X-Original-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B54C3A6927; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 18:44:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rPZWFq1BNBuM; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 18:44:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais.videotron.ca (relais.videotron.ca [24.201.245.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2DF43A6905; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 18:44:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Received: from [192.168.1.10] ([70.81.109.112]) by VL-MO-MR005.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-4.01 (built Aug 3 2007; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0KVY0020TKX1ATJ0@VL-MO-MR005.ip.videotron.ca>; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:43:54 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <4B47ED65.8090209@usherbrooke.ca>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:43:49 -0500
From: Jean-Marc Valin <jean-marc.valin@usherbrooke.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
References: <C76B79FC.1E959%stewe@stewe.org> <4B46404C.4030903@octasic.com> <4B47BC66.3090006@vigilsec.com>
In-reply-to: <4B47BC66.3090006@vigilsec.com>
Cc: codec@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Should the IETF standardize wideband Internet codec\(s\)? " <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 02:44:16 -0000
I like that. On 2010-01-08 18:14, Russ Housley wrote: > Good improvement. I'd go a slide bit further: > > 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 would hinder free > redistribution in any way. > > Russ > > On 1/7/2010 3:13 PM, Jean-Marc Valin wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm not sure royalties are the *least* of out problems, but I certainly >> agree with Stephan that annoyances go further than just royalties. I >> understand that BCP79 restricts what we can say about that in the >> charter, >> but at least mentioning the problem as Stephan suggests is a good idea >> IMO. >> In some sense, this is again part of the "making it easy to >> redistribute". >> >> Jean-Marc >> >> Stephan Wenger wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Russ' language is an improvement. But let's not forget that there are >>> encumbrances that have nothing to do with paying royalties, but are >>> equally >>> problematic from an adoption viewpoint. Examples: >>> >>> 1. Co-marketing requirement: need to put a logo of the rightholder >>> company >>> on one's products acknowledging using the protected technology. >>> 2. Unreasonable (from the viewpoint of the adopter) reciprocity >>> requirements: one of many examples would be "if you use this >>> technology, you >>> agree not to assert, against me or my customers, any of your patents. >>> Otherwise your license terminates.". >>> 3. Requirement for a "postcard license". Such a requirement may rule out >>> open source implementations under certain open source licenses. >>> >>> I believe strongly that a charter that discusses IPR issues should >>> mention >>> at least those three aspects, and/or provide sufficiently vague >>> language to >>> allow for an appropriate reaction to those and other encumbrances >>> that may >>> show up. >>> >>> Royalties are the least of our problems. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Stephan >>> >>> Disclaimer: I have clients that would have problems with all three >>> encumbrances mentioned above. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/7/10 11:08 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre"<stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> codec mailing list >>> codec@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > >
- [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec … IESG Secretary
- [codec] Fwd: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio C… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Roni Even
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Robert Elz
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Roni Even
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Steve Underwood
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Steve Underwood
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Mans Nilsson
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Brian West
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Sam Hartman
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Brian West
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Richard Shockey
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Steve Underwood
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Richard Shockey
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Steve Underwood
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Brian West
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Richard Shockey
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Roni Even
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Gregory Maxwell
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Brian West
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Benjamin M. Schwartz
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Brian West
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Gregory Maxwell
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Dean Willis
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Sam Hartman
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Brian West
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Benjamin M. Schwartz
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Russ Housley
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Herve Taddei
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Sam Hartman
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… John C Klensin
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Herve Taddei
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Herve Taddei
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Michael Ramalho (mramalho)
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Russ Housley
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Michael Knappe
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Steve Underwood
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Herve Taddei
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Steve Underwood
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Steve Underwood
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Herve Taddei
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Herve Taddei
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephane.proust
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Roni Even
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Xavier Marjou
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Monty Montgomery
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Stefan Sayer
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Monty Montgomery
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Monty Montgomery
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Alexander Chemeris
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Roni Even
- Re: [codec] Conferencing and layering Benjamin M. Schwartz
- Re: [codec] Conferencing and layering Brian Rosen
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Russ Housley
- Re: [codec] [IAB] WG Review: Internet Wideband Au… Gregory M. Lebovitz
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Daniel Petrie
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Roni Even
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Daniel Petrie
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Alexander Chemeris
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephane.proust
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Ron
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… John Kostogiannis
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Sjoerd Simons
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Thorvald Natvig
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Roni Even
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephane.proust
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Ron
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Herve Taddei
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… jari.hagqvist
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Mans Nilsson
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Monty Montgomery
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Mans Nilsson
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephane.proust
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Ron
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephen botzko