Re: [codec] Opus codec licensing

[Koen Vos <[e-mail]>]

Hi Anisse,

Your interpretations of "Internal" sound reasonable to me.

I made a typo, and should have said "early versions" rather than "early version". Appologies.

best,
koen.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Anisse Taleb" <[e-mail]>
To: "Koen Vos" <[e-mail]>, "Christian Hoene" <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 12:49:27 AM
Subject: RE: [codec] Opus codec licensing

Dear Koen,
Regarding Skype's position, could you please clarify what is meant by
“internal” and “early version” ?

- Internal : may have different meanings in this context, “internal” to
organizations participating in the testing or “internal” to the IETF
codec WG ? In both cases, “internal” somewhat contradicts the principle
of spreading this to users for evaluation.

- Early version : does this mean that later versions (still prior to
RFC) are excluded ?


Kind regards,
Anisse

---

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of Koen Vos
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 8:40 AM
To: Christian Hoene
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [codec] Opus codec licensing

Christian Hoene wrote:
"It is planned to test the new codec by spreading it to users prior
standardization. However, under the terms of this licensing declaration,
this is not possible for anybody but Skype because it would require a
license from Skype."

Skype's position on this is:
Skype is supportive of internal evaluation and testing of early version
of the Opus specification prior to RFC.

(sorry for the slow response)
koen.

________________________________________
From: "Christian Hoene" <[e-mail]>
To: "Stephan Wenger" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:12:48 AM
Subject: Re: [codec] Opus codec licensing


Hi

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of Stephan Wenger
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 5:21 PM
To: Jean-Marc Valin; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [codec] Opus codec licensing

Hi,
With “hat”:
It is, in almost all cases, unwise for a third party to circumscribe—or
worse: abbreviate—licensing terms provided by a rightholder. Skype’s
licensing declaration can be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1297. I note that the statement
contains conditions beyond the acceptance of their technology into an
IETF standard.
Stephan [Christian Hoene] +1

It is planned to test the new codec by spreading it to users prior
standardization. However, under the terms of this licensing declaration,
this is not possible for anybody but Skype because it would require a
license from Skype.

Also, any enhancement of the codec, which does not conform to the
original standard anymore, will require a license.

Furthermore, any implementation of the codec that accidentally does not
confirm to the standard yet will require a license fee.

Clearly, these terms are unacceptable. Please, Koen, talk to your lawyer
again to weaken this license statements. This shall include at least a
draft versions of the standard. Also, updates of the standard shall not
require any new license anymore.

It is patent really essential for the opus codec?
“A method of estimating noise in data containing voice information and
noise includes receiving the data as a sequence of input values;
transforming the data by applying a first non linear mapping to the
input values wherein the derivative function of the mapping decreases in
magnitude as the input values increase in magnitude smoothing the
transformed data; and transforming the smoothed transformed data by
applying a second non linear mapping that is opposite to the first non
linear mapping, to determine an estimate of the noise in the inputted
data.” Anyhow, it should not be too difficult to circumvent the patent.
Any ideas?

Christian

--------------------------------------------------------------- Dr.-Ing.
Christian Hoene
Interactive Communication Systems (ICS), University of Tübingen
Sand 13, 72076 Tübingen, Germany, Phone [phone]
http://www.net.uni-tuebingen.de/




On 10.18.2010 19:26 , "Jean-Marc Valin" <[e-mail]>
wrote: Opus is available under the BSD license. As for patents, Skype
has pledged to make them available royalty-free once the codec is
accepted as an IETF standard.

Jean-Marc

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] on behalf of Pascal Pochol
Sent: Mon 10/18/2010 10:19 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [codec] Opus codec licensing

Hello,

we've been using speex and celt for voice and music but today I heard
about Opus which sounds like a fantastic replacement for both these
codecs.

We're wondering if Opus will be released under the same type of license
as speex and celt? SILK's license forbid its use in commercial software
and we're worried that it might carry over to Opus. If not, as soon as
Opus handles lower bitrates, stereo and fixed point decoding we'll be
using it.

-Pascal

_______________________________________________ codec mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
________________________________________
_______________________________________________ codec mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec

_______________________________________________ codec mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec