Re: [rtcweb] H.261

Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com> Fri, 22 November 2013 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <miconda@gmail.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 C325D1AE046 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:59:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 fmcUtKo9MXWt for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:59:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ea0-x233.google.com (mail-ea0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F34451AE01A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:59:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ea0-f179.google.com with SMTP id r15so714358ead.38 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:59:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hh3yS6XiZqAwbg6m0J9G6KW9oPcKsZ756Vakw6fwbS4=; b=EdKt8gYFfKpksVod140QYiN2rxOqYnyzb/7BUlKZUp3qJvuUVU63dQjM4zqhNpoMWf JqRhHyeiDT+Pp8ennJM85GgQMBMghnwJbjI5UJdQnScX59lzBGmoOezwfasxG600sFe4 5ibHAyaY/MRPQXbextZpa1FntddSo4xZmKHPFfuZ1uSNMGFHKp5pilHn60kLje/C1JYU QkqlvUnW7fuQiWQtB3FrKZ20bX5oqsj/PjXByfG0KUmk+4F4xjF6oZHUfmbv3PT6lo3R FGPZ6cGdCrQbkEeaIuum3AYIyn+8ZmJ5d9tagHt9teNWfn9jOIK52TwjH4b6Voq1DLkQ eWoQ==
X-Received: by 10.14.8.136 with SMTP id 8mr10973272eer.25.1385150371667; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:59:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ns.asipto.com. [213.133.111.169]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z1sm80035455eeo.14.2013.11.22.11.59.28 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:59:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <528FB79F.8090405@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 20:59:27 +0100
From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/25.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stefan Slivinski <sslivinski@lifesize.com>, Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <CEB4350B.1E7B2%mzanaty@cisco.com> <20131122171020.GY3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66AF@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528F9DAD.3030300@googlemail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66DE@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FAAA8.8060807@googlemail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66FE@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
In-Reply-To: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66FE@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.261
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: miconda@gmail.com
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: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:59:41 -0000

On 11/22/13 8:30 PM, Stefan Slivinski wrote:
> No, this is taking things to extremes.  This codec hasn't been used in any industry for 15 years.  The entire video conferencing industry uses H.264, the broadcast industry uses H.264, the streaming video industry uses H.264, facetime, skype both use H.264.  The list goes on and on.  There is not a single company is existence today using H.261 over H.264 because of patent fears.  It is asinine that this is even being discussed.

You misunderstood the issue. h264 has already an incompatible licensing 
policy for many situations, especially towards open source. Not using 
h264 is not about fears of new patents, but because of the conditions 
imposed by exiting patents.

The vp8 vs h261 is actually the case when today none of them has a 
known/final incompatible license, but of course, the future is not 
known. Against vp8 there are some claims, but none with a final decision 
in court (some already dismissed in early stages).

Daniel

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda