Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

Interesting information.  Two comments inline (after having removed a lot of
valuable info).
Stephan


From:  Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>
Date:  Tue, 19 Apr 2011 19:08:33 -0400
To:  Alan Duric <[e-mail]>
Cc:  "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing

[Š]
There is also a question of ILBC Freeware license. Based on IETF rules, all
the code released as a part of IETF RFC should be covered by BSD license.
The reasoning and applicability of iLBC Freeware license in this context is
unclear.

iLBC, and the drafts leading to the RFC, pre-date the requirement for code
in RFCs to use the BSD style license.  Therefore, the authors had the right
to license their code even in the RFC text under any license compliant with
the then in force IPR documents, which were 2026 (overall procedures), 3667
(for copyright), and 3688 (for patent rights).  I believe the RFC is in
compliance with these documents.

Further, no one requires an author to provide the IETF trust with an
exclusive license for code portions of an RFC.  Therefore, anyone is free to
make available code contributed to an I-D or RFC (and, thereby and for the
purpose of this discussion, BSD-style licensed) also under licenses other
than the BSD style license.  They just have to use a different medium than
the RFC text.

IPR disclosure for iLBC RFC was not updated when RFC was finalized and only
has provisional patent applications, not the final granted patent numbers.

I'm not aware of the nature of the patent rights, or their numbers, that
were disclosed by GlobalIPSound.  I can't find such information in the
disclosure.  That said, those with a bit of patent experience, access to the
right tools, and and a few hours of time, can find the relevant patents
covered by the disclosure with limited effort and reasonable certainty.

Even today the IETF does not require "updates" of IPR disclosures beyond
what is mandated in the rather generic language of the policy documents.
Some rightholders go at great length in keeping their disclosures updated,
others don't.

The really interesting question in this context is whether google finds
itself bound to the promises made by GIPS at the time.  The policy documents
provide no guidance on this topic, and this area of law is currently
litigated in several venues, with (so far) rather inconclusive results.

[Š]

Stephan