Re: [rtcweb] Trellis IPR status? (Re: H261/MPEG-1 video quality)

Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com> Tue, 19 November 2013 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <maikmerten@googlemail.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 DB63C1ADFF8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 06:47:41 -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 ga0plGT9UG9U for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 06:47:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bk0-x231.google.com (mail-bk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4008:c01::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31BFE1ADFF6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 06:47:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-bk0-f49.google.com with SMTP id my13so1062477bkb.8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 06:47:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MgPQWCsFB14i0i5D2NS/aItW9IrY2yDVUDxmpBAuGR0=; b=h7tPnRmB14ATc7Te5qkxw8KfGz20mkF787w9mapGWJKrHNwiX4CIAylZWWOMyC3auw khUk3NS+nQegH+CC49EKqHBqduL6n+JK4mv6GKX5hxwwLqOpigUS/BR10yFQiQ9E+blP GKZ7+22rpRRo8uWmOPhe4C7I439Pt/8jdPsm4nhj+SKL401C2uIgOOXYgYTRDJoKe6/1 ztaxaCCJsl+EcCgR9w+h4peuEcGljtxNxRYh8oWHeaPZ7+RFbZ0LIeeN4iLZl2RJkQC6 Fnyxn61RdUvf6t9+YKl9dVfojTJmEuyB+Sa9bbREpFI7+uG0pLZtFYskpEXnhWqbWL0K zn6A==
X-Received: by 10.205.15.72 with SMTP id pt8mr16318712bkb.17.1384872452603; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 06:47:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [0.0.0.0] (v2201202116457532.yourvserver.net. [46.38.243.75]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l5sm20731602bko.7.2013.11.19.06.47.30 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Nov 2013 06:47:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <528B7A47.4010709@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 15:48:39 +0100
From: Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <5284AB73.5030505@googlemail.com> <5285209D.7020407@googlemail.com> <CAGgHUiSROwRznKZWD4kjn8Vu7SrUVwOnHN1EJ-PTgR=WQmcxAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-2najyMhcVNC8r0Sg+8xgkgDwasBSz476zA0BEpi2X5Pg@mail.gmail.com> <528559E4.3020903@nostrum.com> <5286272B.5000005@bbs.darktech.org> <CAOJ7v-3AT-5BHZAp2hvqm3Th20dk8Ec3orrj-voFMBwZroPdLA@mail.gmail.com> <DUB127-W49A2377699D81E3A1EA912E0FB0@phx.gbl> <CAOJ7v-27XiBGFT8=i=8ZyWYPP4UE64Jo41Pe_i1GAAUWfhDBuA@mail.gmail.com> <52877178.6040002@googlemail.com> <528B1A9F.8050601@alvestrand.no> <528B52EA.9010201@googlemail.com> <528B66FB.1060005@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <528B66FB.1060005@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Trellis IPR status? (Re: H261/MPEG-1 video quality)
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: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 14:47:42 -0000

Am 19.11.2013 14:26, schrieb Harald Alvestrand:
> In the case of VP8, the patent and copyright grants apply both to the
> decoder and the published reference encoder (which is also the one used
> for the tests).
>
> Choosing x264 for the tests was easy; it's got a reputation for quality,
> and its reference source is available on the Internet, so everyone can
> agree what we're talking about when we say "x264, GIT tag xxxxx".

Yeah, just pointing out that IPR discussion wasn't centered on encoder 
implementations, as every specific implementation can open its own can 
of worms which may not strictly be related to the output format itself.


Maik