Re: [rtcweb] H.261

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Wed, 27 November 2013 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
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 571AC1ADF98 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:56:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 px1erPZrgVyR for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:56:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f181.google.com (mail-ie0-f181.google.com [209.85.223.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C49EC1ADF73 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:56:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id e14so12871632iej.12 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:56:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2CcRzGWTS0HnFSegFPsKX3pLCnNjsMlgiMi5/oIju38=; b=PkRrOLOz+6WAQTRP5NOphq8APrKTqb1pBXnAA74ECJriPjEsmcqEtuw2nf3h6n0oH+ 9wGCgfdz7F5QbYwC2bthnTVmrqjv/bF6I/y2fB6E/8XXAfhwCtsOrLkKC1olJWtXdQBs 7zUdURnVq78+PKryR/o6k+OkfPt5qIwAfluJ3CMvCZxZvNBrY5qD9CIeKBoDSiDQXym8 0tEeYXjUdYvpqlXaEke1b67MIBzoKGw1RwOvtOTM8CBT6p6AmMSQb9VMeXRO5tEfS3Ng Y0T32m3RkxnGKi8Ua79yVYlh/xeX0O1QrBCAgNMJ33qFx45lpZRv2yvKSLXcE5TasrmY x1SQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkUKyoXy4cBK4BFw2ZB/Qa9RbvNCMtTxtg8umXBbn7mbK5togE/mlBQzkKMTHLSnDO+Ic0O
X-Received: by 10.42.226.66 with SMTP id iv2mr18606402icb.11.1385578607164; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:56:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ft2sm40383182igb.5.2013.11.27.10.56.45 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:56:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52964040.2010103@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:56:00 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>, tim panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
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> <528FB79F.8090405@gmail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E670F@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FBC43.5000409@librevideo.org> <9783CBA7-FCF4-4241-8A04-F8DBBA409032@cisco.com> <529569C1.5010909@bbs.darktech.org> <CEBABA4F.AAF51%stewe@stewe.org> <5295828A.4050506@bbs.darktech.org> <DFE8489F-D483-44AE-8612-5106A2981BD6@phonefromhere.com> <CEBB59D2.AAFE2%stewe@stewe.org>
In-Reply-To: <CEBB59D2.AAFE2%stewe@stewe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.261
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: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 18:56:49 -0000

This interpretation leaves me very uncomfortable at the thought of using 
H.264 in my own products. How can we base our business on a technology 
when the owner refuses to issue public answers (i.e. commitments) 
regarding its own licensing terms?

This might work for companies with deep pockets for lawyers, but I don't 
think it makes sense for the rest of all. And don't tell me that we're 
safe so long as we use less than "100k units" when the very definition 
of a unit is unknown.

Gili

On 27/11/2013 11:41 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> I doubt very much that you will get an authoritive answer to the those
> broad interpretation questions from MPEG-LA, even if they were formulated
> in a precise and concise way (which, currently, they certainly are not).
> MPEG-LA commonly doesn't want to go public with their own interpretation
> of the agreement, and prefer to do so only with consent of the licensor
> group, which is harder to obtain than herding cats because of the very
> diverse nature of the licensor community.  One motivation of this silence
> may be the fear of weakening the license by making public statements about
> its interpretation that may provide openings for sharp company lawyers to
> cheat out of their licensing obligations.  It¹s a common theme in the
> legal community: say as little as possible.
>
> What can be done, and is (so I understand) not uncommon, is that a company
> (a prospective licensee, but not a ³community²) contacts MPEG-LA directly,
> explains their business model, and asks how that fits within the agreement
> language.  This process can result in a side letter that includes an
> interpretation of the agreement language tailored to the business model of
> the company.  Those side letters are confidential.  The agreement itself
> is AFAIK take it or leave it.