Re: [codec] Opus codec licensing

[Stephen Botzko <[e-mail]>]

Is it possible to create a CODEC-IPR mailing list (or some such) to allow
folks to use the alternative list when chatting about patents and
work-arounds?

That would address some of Stephan's concerns, but still allow the
discussion to archived to an IETF list.  I'd prefer to keep out of the
patent discussions, I suspect there are others who would rather not get
those posts either.

Stephen Botzko

2010/10/20 Christian Hoene <[e-mail]>

>  Hello,
>
>
>
> as long as the IPR license conditions remain unclear to everybody without a
> legal background – and even those with legal background describe that they
> could be unacceptable – may I remind that the guidelines draft contains a
> sentence stating:
>
>
>
> “In cases where no RF license can be obtained regarding a patent, the group
> should consider alternative algorithms or methods, even if they result in
> lower quality, higher complexity, or otherwise less desirable
> characteristics (in most cases, the degradation will likely be small once
> the best alternative has been identified).“
>
>
>
> Thus, I kindly want to remind that there is work to do and that any help
> from any side is highly appreciated. I will try to do my very best to
> overcome this current drawback.
>
> What are your personal opinions, does the patent really cover only the DTX
> part of the Opus codec?
>
>
>
> With best regards,
>
>
>
>  Christian Hoene
>
>
>
> PS:
>
> This, as, my previous emails, are just my personal opinions.
>
>
>
> PPS:
>
> Does the IPR statement #1297 only covers the draft-vos-silk-01? Is it
> require to file a similar statement for the opus draft?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dr.-Ing. Christian Hoene
>
> Interactive Communication Systems (ICS), University of Tübingen
>
> Sand 13, 72076 Tübingen, Germany, Phone [phone]
>
> http://www.net.uni-tuebingen.de/
>
>
>
> *From:* Stephan Wenger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:14 PM
> *To:* Christian Hoene; [e-mail]
> *Cc:* 'Alfons Martin'
>
> *Subject:* Re: [codec] Opus codec licensing
>
>
>
> Hi Christian,
>
>
> On 10.19.2010 11:12 , "Christian Hoene" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> [...]
> Clearly, these terms are unacceptable.
> [...]
>
> Let me suggest that you (and everyone else) mark their opinion on licensing
> terms as your personal opinion.  What’s acceptable or inacceptable to you
> may very well be acceptable or inacceptable to me.
>
> Same goes with compliance to the charter.
>
> Stephan
>
>
>
> On 10.18.2010 19:26 , "Jean-Marc Valin" <[e-mail] <
> [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
>
>