Re: [rtcweb] A different perspective on the video codec MTI discussion

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Thu, 14 March 2013 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8CB811E81B0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HmN5XiNulhhX for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x235.google.com (mail-wi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B72D011E81AC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:11:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id hm6so2099969wib.8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:11:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=IzyZrW0iE+hWhZI0UNVnTIr87TKc6SbCp43KQPF8IIU=; b=nfLqem+ng4Wq14C7Xq1+4ZeofcSrfeWaDOohTWyCrNbEXoXKRpZDbkg9LBzq87+rxY C4Xevv2CVlOe2HqzxYICHHKfonvMrz3///FFQ0dFcuQ++dFsS0Htez9xI20tGsxQOlGz Kch2i7qqnYd7t3/oYLSW6gQjAFk47gwmYxzBhd8R3UHcBUyCJGcs63eubPIpgRAKZPf4 TVMYq5s+zYWMrTl70/7tESFQMUW5dQRr5vH0De0qQ3aLEF2wj3WcQ8B70okYAhaMXN/a oYD2YB5y5dO4w9Dp31XBVfH8r6KZbx1tvN5YTuDDOMQp/wHW3MI6L4RoJbXxnxHEbyvD bOOw==
X-Received: by 10.180.100.10 with SMTP id eu10mr36041068wib.4.1363284715895; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f52.google.com (mail-wg0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c15sm5655274wiw.3.2013.03.14.11.11.54 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id 15so1335489wgd.7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.87.98 with SMTP id w2mr5970261wiz.30.1363284713720; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.217.107.135 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <514211B6.1010202@librevideo.org>
References: <CA+23+fE3WRs5SxAUcsjWbxcjzQKxCtW7sdfHtAsbd7MbPyHAtQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAEWS6TJPKXdf7i140wKMZFHBcSVBtCxwzViWYYFgL01D=LdmEg@mail.gmail.com> <F0FCD7D0-969E-46D9-9681-3A64D36F59DF@apple.com> <51420679.2060909@librevideo.org> <34944444-4FEB-4AD0-A90D-1EE8C56C0253@acmepacket.com> <514211B6.1010202@librevideo.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:11:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxsDotRmswmZwdKg1Tc0fBf13x=j1rOo7_YTb4tk03Qm0w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0418261616cfbe04d7e67589
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkYunuii5tQrvTCBAtQX/aSRlGaohCpLw8/pZCyexQ17pPj1CigPGhRlV6nQIYYK7C3oXmm
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] A different perspective on the video codec MTI discussion
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:11:57 -0000

One thing that was not clear for me from your blog was if an application
running on Windows OS and using OS provided API for H.264 playback is
licensed to do so.
_____________
Roman Shpount


On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar <
basilgohar@librevideo.org> wrote:

> On 03/14/2013 01:39 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> > On Mar 14, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar <
> basilgohar@librevideo.org>
> >  wrote:
> >
> >> I talked about this with direct answers from the MPEG-LA here:
> >>
> http://www.librevideo.org/blog/2010/06/14/mpeg-la-answers-some-questions-about-avch-264-licensing/
> > Interesting - I hadn't realized their license was as viral to
> 'derivative' works as GPLv3.
> I forgot to point out in my last reply that the observation I made about
> CC-licensed material might not be completely sound, from a legal
> standpoint.  The confusion, however, is definitely present, but the
> point is that that case may not be present.  Your license via CC
> basically doesn't overlap with the need for licensing.  If I can find
> the relevant text about that, I will try to share it and/or post again
> on the blog.
>
> --
> Libre Video
> http://librevideo.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>