Re: [codec] Conformance with unusual sample rates

[John Ridges <[e-mail]>]

Mr. Maxwell,

I apologize for spreading any FUD. Your statement is what I had expected 
(and hoped for). I was thrown a bit by Mr. Wenger's concerns. For my 
part, I consider this matter closed.

John Ridges


On 11/18/2011 4:06 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> John Ridges [[e-mail]]:
>> Well, I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem right that a standard should
>> invite you to use the reference implementation in a way that would
>> violate its own IPR declarations. It makes me wonder if there are ways
>> of inadvertently misusing the codec's API that would do so as well.
> Obviously.
>
> This is the purpose of language like: [warning generic language from an IPR
> statement is contained in the paragraph below]
>
> "Specification means, [...]
> (b) any reference implementation (each, a “Reference Implementation”)
> published by the IETF Codec Working Group in the request for comments
> [...]  . Licensed patents [...] in the case of (b) above, use of the
> reference implementation to the extent it infringes such patent"
>
> My expectation is that the red light / green-light stuff is moot if  you are
> using an IETF published reference implementation as is. This is the
> reasonable and expected thing, and to the best of my knowledge it was
> the intention of the parties that contributed to the process.
>
> Other things are permitted as well, subject to the conformance
> requirements, but if you want to be extra paranoid, and want to take
> the easy way out, using the reference itself will cover you.
>
> If you've found some reason to believe otherwise, please contact me
> and I'll either point you to whatever you're missing or fuss at people
> to get it fixed.  (This is a generic invitation, open to any and all comers,
> if there is too much interest I'll write a FAQ outside of the working
> group or something…)
>
>
>