Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

"Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com> Thu, 04 December 2014 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <tterriberry@mozilla.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D78BC1A1E0F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 13:15:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.288
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3vdR0OtcJvyE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 13:15:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.mozilla.org (mx1.corp.phx1.mozilla.com [63.245.216.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E30C21A1A06 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 13:15:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.5.111] (50-193-216-106-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.193.216.106]) (Authenticated sender: tterriberry@mozilla.com) by mx1.mail.corp.phx1.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCFA0F20DE for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 13:15:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5480CEF2.4020204@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 13:15:30 -0800
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.26
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <547511DB.5050100@nostrum.com> <54759A4C.6020806@gmail.com> <5476092D.4010406@nostrum.com> <15EF2452-2C2C-420B-B972-C37EACE57850@apple.com> <CAHp8n2m+KMnui30_fMrwM+81UX-RUJM2ktuiZuPpRSnC7dxqcA@mail.gmail.com> <20141204014218.5955730.38619.3157@blackberry.com> <CAHp8n2=KWuTsmruz3W-90eAsptSoMYLTUVtyx9pAwcZFGXSKCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CB477124-13AD-47EA-A607-8A81AFFA379E@apple.com> <CAHp8n2n1m6WRaBPNyKpowPEz_BK-SAMMFWTiB7d-eVL69w4rpQ@mail.gmail.com> <1F326DF9-79C2-4562-853B-240D934EA235@apple.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B28CDFF@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <CAD5OKxv+s_2qEGaYADi=-j-0Rn=pw_7Okd7Uv0qqKPnTyeXh+g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxv+s_2qEGaYADi=-j-0Rn=pw_7Okd7Uv0qqKPnTyeXh+g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/0sgWctgu2Vo-mic10-FJtAOnuHM
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 21:15:38 -0000

Roman Shpount wrote:
> Actually Google does grant patent license to the implementation of WebM,
> which includes both encoder and decoder
> (http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/). This is one of the
> reasons we think VP8 license is better then H.264. (The other two are
> reciprocity and no use restrictions on the produced media).

Serge also confirmed on this list that that license applies to 
third-party implementations as well: 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04006.html

The Opus licenses similarly grant rights to patents that read on the 
reference implementation, including the encoder, even if used in a 
third-party implementation.

Now, it's certainly possible to infringe other people's IPR by 
implementing an encoder sufficiently different from the reference 
encoder. One must be very careful when doing that. But these reference 
implementations are production-grade. Anyone who merely wishes to deploy 
a codec has an implementation they can use with just as much assurance 
of the IPR safety of the encoder as they have of the decoder.