Re: [rtcweb] Reference implementation of software codecs (was: Video codec selection - way forward)

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

Could the chairs comment on this? Is this the WG's position? (Do you 
need more time to think this over?)

I ask because this would affect which option we'd vote for.

Thanks,
Gili

On 18/11/2013 12:58 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:44 AM, cowwoc <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>     Looks good! I'd like to get a clarification which affects multiple
>     options, but #10 most of all.
>
>     Does the WG commit to providing reference implementations that
>     supports VP8, H.264, H.261 with a commercially-friendly license? I
>     am talking strictly about the software license, not the codec IPR.
>     Meaning, libx264 requires a GPL license and ffmpeg requires either
>     a LGPL or GPL license. I would argue that libx264 is a non-starter
>     for commercial use on any platform (due to GPL) and ffmpeg is not
>     usable under iOS (since LGPL + static linking is equivalent to
>     GPL). It is my understanding that the current WebRTC reference
>     implementation is published under the BSD license. I am asking for
>     the final reference implementation (supporting these codecs) to be
>     published under the same license.
>
>     I'm not saying that anyone has to ship a reference implementation
>     supporting all 3 codecs, but rather that the WG should publish a
>     reference implementation demonstrating how it can be done and
>     proving interoperability actually works as expected.
>
>
> Huh?
>
> IETF WGs almost never provide reference implementations. Given the 
> scale of the effort and the
> state of the existing implementations, I can't imagine why would do
> so in this case.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>     Thanks,
>     Gili
>
>
>     On 18/11/2013 7:45 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>
>         WG,
>
>         The current list of proposed alternative are the following one:
>
>           The following alternatives has been proposed:
>
>            1. All entities MUST support H.264
>            2. All entities MUST support VP8
>            3. All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>            4. Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities
>         MUST
>               support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>            5. All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>            6. All entities MUST support H.261
>            7. There is no MTI video codec
>            8. 5+6, i.e. All entities MUST support H.261 and all
>         entities MUST
>               support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>            9. All entities MUST support Theora.
>           10. All entities SHOULD support both H.264 and VP8. All
>         entities MUST
>               at least implement one of those. Entities that do not
>         support both
>               H.264 and VP8 MUST implement H.261.
>
>         The deadline to propose additional alternatives are: 27th of
>         November 2013
>
>         Cheers
>
>         Magnus
>
>         On 2013-11-13 21:23, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>
>             Folks,
>
>             I hope everybody had a safe trip back home after Vancouver.
>
>             As you all know, we need to make progress regarding the
>             selection of the
>             MTI video codec. The following are some of the
>             alternatives we have on
>             the table:
>
>               1. All entities MUST support H.264
>               2. All entities MUST support VP8
>               3. All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>               4. Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>               5. All entities MUST support either H.264 or VP8
>               6. All entities MUST support H.261
>               7. There is no MTI video codec
>
>             If you want the group to consider additional alternatives
>             to the ones
>             above, please let the group know within the following *two
>             weeks*. At
>             that point, the chairs will be listing all the received
>             alternatives and
>             proposing a process to select one among them.
>
>             Please, send your proposals in an email to the list. You
>             do not need to
>             write a draft; just send the text you would like to see in
>             the final
>             document regarding video codecs.
>
>             Thanks,
>
>             Gonzalo
>             Responsible AD for this WG
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             rtcweb mailing list
>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>