Re: [codec] Individuals and hats

Stephan Wenger <> Thu, 14 April 2011 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD49AE069F for <>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.932
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.667, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SaWFYcTim48V for <>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE295E0699 for <>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unverified []) by (SurgeMail 3.9e) with ESMTP id 9345-1743317 for multiple; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:42:34 +0200
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:42:22 -0700
From: Stephan Wenger <>
To: Steve Underwood <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [codec] Individuals and hats
In-Reply-To: <>
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] Individuals and hats
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:42:36 -0000

There was an email to this very list, 11/11/2009.

It appears to me that a possible user of G.719 needs to contact both
rightholder companies to obtain a license.  The Polycom license contains
certain "attribution" requirements.  This requirement makes the license
compatible with some, but by no means with all business models (or open
source licenses, for that matter).  That is one reason why I argued so
strongly in the past to bear in mind aspects other than monetary
compensation--the RF dimension is only one of many when it comes to
limitations of use.

I don't know what the Ericsson license requires; I have not seen the

(And I do not want to learn on this list any facts or rumors about the
practicalities and enforcement of licenses such as the two mentioned
above, except perhaps information that has already been published


On 4.14.2011 07:18 , "Steve Underwood" <> wrote:

>Hi Roni,
>On 04/14/2011 05:03 PM, Roni Even wrote:
>> Personally I am not involved in MPEG work at all. I had past experience
>> standardizing of G.719 which is a royalty free codec and I can also
>> that Anisse was also part of this work.
>I am interested in that statement. The last time we checked, Polycom
>were making their patents on G.719 royalty free, on the same conditions
>as their patents on G.722.1. Ericsson were not. Has that changed?
>codec mailing list