IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options

Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> Wed, 10 December 2014 23:17 UTC

Return-Path: <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.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 B581D1A001B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:17:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 8k1gUwTA49JC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:17:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x230.google.com (mail-wi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44A991A0105 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:17:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f176.google.com with SMTP id ex7so12860276wid.9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:17:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=fdK1w6bYDcrNyJaTUrQRqLqR5JcM3rDXnuNbgREfGRw=; b=dHiA+UdoWcPgakos6RvnlWwzGtYKphM87yrR15fjqU89qHAJ2aJerTjEnBDNd44xoj hwrQE8QH55U778j88WxPaiHZSu2SYmv4AW5nrStSzADMOI9V9mesIyYX/2rc8r9C/OZ9 3N19rU+LpeYvM1gM2UXaU/dIPbu563NBFoeHOCmM63icRRI3yE/iC8CdwlkJb74pJafv 1/91YYGXcBv/eZ/JmXVyiGx4sOfJVlzZtsIuSsoD7wBshAg/cbRldVUPVw/ZhKhcR9sL w5Z0T0eiwN4uZT9vq5lfSGFkxF+2vzLDr/PqGuhL5hQLvQrCx7bmXuFeNygz3BDoja7s FByg==
X-Received: by 10.180.211.2 with SMTP id my2mr10163972wic.3.1418253471072; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:17:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.194] ([95.61.111.78]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id n5sm569533wic.6.2014.12.10.15.17.49 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:17:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5488D49D.5040307@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 00:17:49 +0100
From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <54820E74.90201@mozilla.com> <54861AD6.8090603@reavy.org> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998AC05@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <63BC3D6D-03A1-41C2-B92D-C8DD57DC51DB@nostrum.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998ADF1@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <87d27r9o0a.fsf_-_@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <CABkgnnVYNjYAM=WhpuURHMUkU4mtT7E3a5yvqSG7+fGKXKOoNw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgRfVowjpLbB-x-j9AU3bL_EOGD2E0baesuL=bE-ME=9cQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgRfVowjpLbB-x-j9AU3bL_EOGD2E0baesuL=bE-ME=9cQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000606050706070205060403"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/FZSygSDLnuzaSvU27owveZ1hBHE
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options
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, 10 Dec 2014 23:17:54 -0000

No it is not.

The availability of OpenH264 was proposed here in this list as one 
argument in favor of adopting H264, so IMHO, this should be explained.

Best regards
Sergio
On 11/12/2014 0:04, Richard Barnes wrote:
> +1
>
> This conversation is out of scope for this mailing list.
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Martin Thomson 
> <martin.thomson@gmail.com <mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 10 December 2014 at 13:46, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de
>     <mailto:fw@deneb.enyo.de>> wrote:
>     > This rules out commercial use.  Doesn't this fail the "reasonable"
>     > part of RAND because it is expected that commercial end users
>     obtain a
>     > separate patent license of their own (which is not part of a product
>     > that can be purchased)?  If this is still considered
>     "reasonable", is
>     > the fact relevant that all published MPEG-LA material about H.264
>     > refers to patent licensing in a broadcasting context (either the
>     > production side, or the receiver side)?  This strongly suggests
>     to me
>     > that they may lack the rights to license H.264 for use in video
>     > conferencing applications.
>
>     I recommend that you consult counsel on these sorts of questions.
>     Seeking legal opinion on an internet mailing list might not produce
>     the best results.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email