Re: [rtcweb] H.261

cowwoc <> Wed, 27 November 2013 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 571AC1ADF98 for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:56:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.6
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id px1erPZrgVyR for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:56:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C49EC1ADF73 for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:56:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id e14so12871632iej.12 for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:56:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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 with SMTP id iv2mr18606402icb.11.1385578607164; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:56:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id ft2sm40383182igb.5.2013. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:56:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:56:00 -0500
From: cowwoc <>
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 <>, tim panton <>
References: <> <20131122171020.GY3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.261
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: 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.


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.