Re: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-opus-12.txt> (Definition of the Opus Audio Codec) to Proposed Standard

Stephan Wenger <> Mon, 30 April 2012 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D7421E80F3; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.822
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.822 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.223, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a244f2sqpV8g; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D304121E80E2; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:53:12 +0000
Received: from mail94-am1 (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0DCC4603EC; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:53:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -35
X-BigFish: PS-35(zz936eK1432N41c5N98dKzz1202h1082kzz8275ch1033IL8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839h944he5bh)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI;; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
Received-SPF: pass (mail94-am1: domain of designates as permitted sender) client-ip=;; ; ;
Received: from mail94-am1 (localhost.localdomain []) by mail94-am1 (MessageSwitch) id 1335826389868658_9496; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:53:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C66BC340045; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:53:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:53:09 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.16.0143.004; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:53:13 +0000
From: Stephan Wenger <>
To: SM <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-opus-12.txt> (Definition of the Opus Audio Codec) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AQHNJyQFLlac4d7Mn0K5mHaRhatRkA==
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:53:13 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-opus-12.txt> (Definition of the Opus Audio Codec) to Proposed Standard
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:53:22 -0000

This subject was also raised by our AD on the codec mailing list.  The
statement is about spec text copyright (with the possible exception of the
word "use", which is loaded in this context, see BSD license and implicit
patent grant ambiguity).  Insofar, the patent licensing statement received
appear to be irrelevant to this discussion.
Generally speaking, according to the TLP, the authors are free to provide
a wider copyright grant than the TLP is providing, and they intend to do
so with this section.  See also here: for some
justification.  The question of whether a section in the subject doc is
the right place for such a grant has not yet been answered.
My view on the latter: it's not.  One issue of having such a notice is
that it expressly allows derivative work, possibly WITHOUT removing the
IETF boilerplate and the TLP copyright notice first.  This would go
against language and spirit of the TLP.  We (the IETF) does NOT want and
do not allow derivative work of our specs outside of the IETF process.
The authors are free to publish the opus spec elsewhere, with whatever
copyright grants they wish to attach to.  But they should first remove any
references of the doc being an IETF-RFC or , more precisely, falling under
the TLP.  

On 4.30.2012 21:05 , "SM" <> wrote:

>At 13:20 26-04-2012, The IESG wrote:
>>The IESG has received a request from the Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG
>>(codec) to consider the following document:
>>- 'Definition of the Opus Audio Codec'
>>   <draft-ietf-codec-opus-12.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>Section 10 about "copying conditions" mentions "without
>royalty".  There was a message to the CODEC mailing list about the
>Qualcomm IPR disclosure.  The Licensing declaration in the Huawei IPR
>disclosures do not mention royalty-free.  Was that taken into account
>by the authors for the statement in Section 10?
>Could the authors please clarify what they mean by "the work" in the
>   "The authors agree to grant third parties the irrevocable right to
>    copy, use and distribute the work (excluding Code Components
>    available under the simplified BSD license)"