Re: [codec] Fwd: COM 16-LS 124 - Outgoing LS from SG16 meeting (26 October - 6 November 2009)

"Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@digium.com> Wed, 11 November 2009 01:03 UTC

Return-Path: <kpfleming@digium.com>
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 14FCB3A67B1 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:03:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.337
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.337 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 V7LwcDxN7-Qo for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:03:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.digium.com (mail.digium.com [216.207.245.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12FD33A689C for <codec@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:03:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jupiler.digium.internal ([10.19.29.150] helo=jupiler.digium.com) by mail.digium.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <kpfleming@digium.com>) id 1N81cf-0005Ok-3F for codec@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:03:45 -0600
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by jupiler.digium.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12CB0DFC828 for <codec@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:03:45 -0600 (CST)
Received: from jupiler.digium.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (jupiler.digium.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HgTSuOhty0Oh for <codec@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:03:44 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [133.93.24.160] (host-24-160.meeting.ietf.org [133.93.24.160]) (Authenticated sender: kpfleming) by jupiler.digium.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D44DDFC827 for <codec@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:03:43 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <4AFA0D6D.1020203@digium.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:03:41 +0900
From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@digium.com>
Organization: Digium, Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: codec@ietf.org
References: <334A4109C6BEA14ABB48EBCF274A6C8A055399DF@MAILBOX1.blue.itu.ch> <A2B8EAD0-4EE9-4B07-A3CF-6133C1B14506@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A2B8EAD0-4EE9-4B07-A3CF-6133C1B14506@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
OpenPGP: id=05FB8DB2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [codec] Fwd: COM 16-LS 124 - Outgoing LS from SG16 meeting (26 October - 6 November 2009)
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: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:03:19 -0000

Cullen Jennings wrote:

>> From: TSBSG16, ITU [mailto:tsbsg16@itu.int]
>> Sent: 10 November 2009 10:57
>> To: Cullen Jennings; statements@ietf.org; Robert Sparks; Gregory
>> Lebovitz; Russ Housley; Patrik Fältström
>> Cc: Campos, Simao; claude.lamblin@orange-ftgroup.com;
>> herve.taddei@huawei.com; hiwasaki.yusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp;
>> hiwasaki.yusuke@gmail.com
>> Subject: COM 16-LS 124 - Outgoing LS from SG16 meeting (26 October - 6
>> November 2009)
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Kindly find attached the Liaison Statement COM16 - LS 124  on "speech
>> and audio coding standardization" addressed to IETF RAI, IESG agreed
>> at the ITU-T SG 16 meeting held in Geneva from 26 October to 6
>> November 2009.

At the risk of inflaming the licensing discussion even further, in the
ITU-T process, is it only required that the IPR disclosure claim to
offer the IPR under RAND, but that there is no actual confirmation that
the discloser's terms would in fact be widely agreed upon to be RAND?

For example, to my knowledge, Polycom has recently begun offering
royalty-free (under a patent non-assert) licensing for their IPR
including in G.719. However, the other primary IPR holder in G,719 is
Ericsson, and the process of determining licensing terms for their IP
begins with signing a non-disclosure agreement with them. Given that,
it's completely impossible to know whether a licensing offer from them
is discriminatory or not, because the recipient cannot discuss the
proposed terms with other existing or potential licensees.

If this arrangement qualifies under the ITU-T's definition of RAND, then
it seems that doesn't result in licensability under terms that most
people would term 'reasonable', let alone compatible with open source
licensing.

-- 
Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
skype: kpfleming | jabber: kpfleming@digium.com
Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org