Re: [codec] A concrete proposal for requirements and testing

Stephan Wenger <> Sat, 09 April 2011 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A82E03A6835 for <>; Sat, 9 Apr 2011 08:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.291
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.291 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.308, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i8Dr3EWQ2kZg for <>; Sat, 9 Apr 2011 08:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CBBE3A6876 for <>; Sat, 9 Apr 2011 08:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unverified []) by (SurgeMail 3.9e) with ESMTP id 7716-1743317 for multiple; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 17:35:50 +0200
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 08:35:41 -0700
From: Stephan Wenger <>
To: Ron <>,
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [codec] A concrete proposal for requirements and testing
In-Reply-To: <20110409152146.GK30415@audi.shelbyville.oz>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-ORBS-Stamp: Your IP ( was found in the spamhaus database.
Subject: Re: [codec] A concrete proposal for requirements and testing
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 15:34:06 -0000

With hat:

Wrong answer.

In the IETF, as a group, we look at information made available by the
rightholders (to the IETF, or, when there are other SDOs involved, at
their disclosure system and/or their patent policy).  Those of us who feel
qualified can also look at objectively verifiable (by anyone!) data such
as patent expiration dates.

We do not look at known, rumored, or unknown licensing deals.  We do not
solicit such information.

Let's stay out of antitrust trouble.


On 4.9.2011 08:21 , "Ron" <> wrote:

>On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 05:42:59PM +0300, Roni Even wrote:
>> Jean Marc,
>> G.722.1 and G.722.1C were mentioned as royalty free codecs. Is OPUS one?
>Has anyone requested or obtained a royalty from anyone using it?
>That should give as black and white an answer to that question as there
>Now can we please stop repeating this.  There was another list set up
>specifically for telling patent ghost stories.
>codec mailing list