Re: [rtcweb] On the topic of MTI video codecs

"Olle E. Johansson" <> Fri, 01 November 2013 08:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D615621F9E9A for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 01:16:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.091
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.091 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XI183JovHnhF for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 01:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a02:920:212e::205]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55DD321F9994 for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 01:16:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 60BED93C2A2; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 08:16:49 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4706CABD-8E1D-4BD4-B0E8-D7F032ED9B59"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
From: "Olle E. Johansson" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 09:16:48 +0100
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Daniel Constantin Mierla <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] On the topic of MTI video codecs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 08:16:57 -0000

On 01 Nov 2013, at 08:37, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <> wrote:

> On 11/1/13 8:07 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>> On 31 Oct 2013, at 21:51, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <> wrote:
>>> On 10/31/13 10:35 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>>>> On 30 Oct 2013, at 22:40, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <> wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 30, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Leon Geyser <> wrote:
>>>>>> Unfortunately like Jonathan pointed out H.264 will only be able to be used royalty free on certain(most popular) platforms.
>>>>>> To be able to avoid negotiation failure we need a MTI codec that every potential now/future browser would be able to implement freely.
>>>>>> I like what Cisco did, but the solution seems a bit half-baked.
>>>>> I think that Mozilla put it pretty nicely in their blog. What this annoucement gives us is not a perfect world. Mozilla is working towards a better future but in the mean time, this is the best thing we could possibly figure out on how to make the internet today be the best it can be for users.
>>>> For the Open Source community in general I beleve this is a big move forward and I want to thank everyone involved in getting this done. It can not have been an easy internal struggle through all layers of the company. Everyone will benefit from it.
>>>> For us in the Asterisk community I believe this opens up for use of video in a whole new way.
>>> To my understanding, the release of the codec is for webrtc only, and particularly for client side/browsers. For clarification, is this codec/blob available to use for free in any application, no matter its relation with webrtc sessions?
>> THe text on says:
>> "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."
>> Doesn't even mention WebRTC - does it?
> quick check on that site and I couldn't sport it, maybe there were other blogs/news/... claiming that.
Yes, there was a lot of opinions flying around yesterday :-)

> On the site, it is still one questionable FAQ, imo:
> Q. Can I take advantage of the H.264 codec binary module in my project?
> A: Yes. Your users can download this module to utilize the H.264 video codec with your project.
> "Your users" -- that sound like "not you" as service provider, more like: it can be used by client applications, not servers.

I think they mean "the users of your project". In the Asterisk example we could not distribute the binary as part of our tar.gz but let the Asterisk admin download the binary manually. We're doing that with some Digium firmware for cards, sound files and have done it in the past with some codec source code too.

But you are right, the word "users" here is propably just a bad choice of wording and Cisco could propably clarify a bit better.