Re: [rtcweb] Cisco to open source its H.264 implementation and absorb MPEG-LA licensing fees

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 30 October 2013 15:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FF3811E82BC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x9uCOAh4zE7a for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22c.google.com (mail-ie0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CC3F11E8267 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id tp5so2604443ieb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=fU0Milal1XGFIv+kBA4lba4UjXqlUrKIf+1o8rHB30w=; b=WRujN3iumhnEK07xltuGmQ45I2mqJaNld7Ns2lBNcLlPZyG/orC4SFeIzPwVJOAfkJ LnJrqiy22JGC6CgljxcUvAKqtx9iJZgok+WbXb0ev9TXeYLNRSLaqJtcpul4kThU465U VES4oyuN63EAx81LcjzRM4V9NEdJid41l7VecYbjBpyhOayggIJ9fWrjQCza0RZJoNo4 yN5+sWYSXZIZbV175ofPjeNpF5121WWU6k87aqLIuVxrpT2UY+r3uZcn4RngshD8Kv5n /+qZ/NRkdRdDZRdjqc3zZj9hrOETRSAJYCAuIikqEcz3cHqrWfp4ncjRT4/s/TgN1VUB 2+Ew==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.130.46 with SMTP id ob14mr2965024igb.22.1383147848678; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.43.115.72 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <186CE8D65BA3A741A81A543F936DD0D10A5803D8@xmb-rcd-x07.cisco.com>
References: <186CE8D65BA3A741A81A543F936DD0D10A5803D8@xmb-rcd-x07.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:44:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMDhYk894XMCxo9gYQjo_+AOheZiZuFCPH2x13UZodb7+Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Jonathan Rosenberg (jdrosen)" <jdrosen@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b418bb33144f604e9f7349b"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Cisco to open source its H.264 implementation and absorb MPEG-LA licensing fees
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:45:38 -0000

Dr. Rosenberg, it's always good to have your contributions.

Thanks for today's announcement; I have a couple of questions.

In March, Cullen announced that Cisco would open source an H.264
implementation if the working group selected H.264 as the MTI.  I assume
that today's announcement is a follow-on to that intention, removing the
requirement for H.264 to be the MTI for this generous gift, since there is
no similar requirement in your statement.  Is that correct?  This will
remain available even in the case some other codec is selected as MTI?

The web site and your announcement say H.264, without naming specific
profiles.  Will the details of which will be included come when the source
code is available?  Do you have a timeline for when the source code might
become available?  Since the board will also name supported platforms, can
you give a timeline for when they might be disclosed?

The current announcement describes this as a single donation, but my read
is that it is really two, in that someone may *either* have the source code
under BSD license term* or* they may have the downloadable module with
Cisco paying the MPEG-LA license fees, but that these offers cannot be
combined.  This is based on my reading of this question and answer:

*Q. Why is Cisco making both source and binary versions available?*
A: The source code is available so that an implementation of H.264 is
available for the community to use across any project, and to leverage the
community to make the codec better for all. We will select licensing terms
that allow for this code to be used in commercial products as well as open
source projects. In order for Cisco to be responsible for the MPEG LA
licensing royalties for the module, Cisco must provide the packaging and
distribution of this code in a binary module format (think of it like a
plug-in, but not using the same APIs as existing plugins), in addition to
several other constraints. This gives the community the best of all worlds
- a team can choose to use the source code, in which case the team is
responsible for paying all applicable license fees, or the team can use the
binary module distributed by Cisco, in which case Cisco will cover the MPEG
LA licensing fees.

Can you confirm that understanding?  If so, I have to note that I find the
phrase "best of all worlds" a bit hyperbolic--a technology license that
applied to all implementations would seem a bit better.  This may, of
course, be the best of all worlds available to H.264.  I also note, by the
way, that your announcement says BSD license, but this Q & A discuss this
as if the licensing terms were still undefined.  Can you confirm that the
license is BSD and update the FAQ?

I also read it to say that Cisco will not indemnify users of either the
source code or module against other patent holder's assertions of license,
based on this question and answer:

*Q: Is Cisco guaranteeing that it will pay other licensing fees for H.264,
should additional patent holders assert claims in the future?
*A: Cisco is providing no such guarantee. We are only covering the
royalties that would apply to the binary module under MPEG LA's AVC/H.264
patent pool.

This seems quite clear to me, but I would appreciate your confirming it on
the list.

Many thanks again for your contribution,

regards,

Ted Hardie


On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:28 AM, Jonathan Rosenberg (jdrosen) <
jdrosen@cisco.com> wrote:

>  I’d like to make an announcement material to the conversations around
> MTI video codecs in rtcweb.****
>
> ** **
>
> Cisco is announcing today that we will take our H.264 implementation, and
> open source it under BSD license terms. Development and maintenance will be
> overseen by a board from industry and the open source community.
> Furthermore, we will provide a binary form suitable for inclusion in
> applications across a number of different operating systems (Windows,
> MacOS, Linux x86, Linux ARM and Android ARM), and make this binary module
> available for download from the Internet. We will not pass on our MPEG-LA
> licensing costs for this module, and based on the current licensing
> environment, this will effectively make H.264 free for use on supported
> platforms. ****
>
> ** **
>
> We believe that this contribution to the community can help address the
> concerns many have raised around selection of H.264 as MTI. I firmly
> believe that with H.264 we can achieve maximal interoperability and now, do
> it with open source and for free (well, at least for others – its not free
> for Cisco J)****
>
> More information on the open source project can be found at
> http://www.openh264.org, which is sparse now but more coming soon.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Thx,****
>
> Jonathan R.****
>
> ** **
>
> --****
>
> Jonathan Rosenberg, PhD****
>
> VP, CTO Collaboration****
>
> Cisco Systems****
>
> jdrosen@cisco.com****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>