Re: [rtcweb] Proposal for H.263 baseline codec

Basil Mohamed Gohar <> Thu, 29 March 2012 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DC6F21E81A0 for <>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.58
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nNE576Vjvpiz for <>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9977E21E80AC for <>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF7306525CD for <>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:15:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:15:03 -0400
From: Basil Mohamed Gohar <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20111108 Fedora/3.1.16-1.fc14 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.16
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposal for H.263 baseline codec
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:15:09 -0000

On 03/29/2012 10:57 AM, Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote:
> On 03/29/2012 10:53 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>> On 3.29.2012 16:24 , "Basil Mohamed Gohar" <>
>> wrote:
>>> On 03/29/2012 10:20 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>>>> The second part of your sentence may or may not be true, depending on
>>>> your
>>>> relationship with google, your willingness to use the webm
>>>> implementation
>>>> in unchanged form, and other factors.  Please see the webm license
>>>> conditions, which AFAIK can be found here:
>>> Correct.  I think you are referring to this part, explicitly:
>>>> If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree
>>>> to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including
>>>> a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this
>>>> implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this
>>>> implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent
>>>> infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent
>>>> rights granted to you under this License for this implementation of
>>>> VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
>>> Perhaps I assumed that that is a very reasonable part of the license.
>>> That is, if you are suing someone alleging a patent infringement within
>>> VP8, you are no longer granted the license to use VP8's patented
>>> technologies that Google owns.
>> Yes, that's one issue.  Call it personal preference for different type of
>> reciprocity conditions :-)  (I could rant about it for hours, but let's
>> continue to pretend that this is mostly a technical mailing list)
>> The other issue, though (the fact that the license grant extends only to
>> the VP8 implementation as provided by google, and does not extent to
>> derivative works such as hardware implementations) should be moderately
>> alarming even for an open source person.  With respect to this clause, I
>> will note that I criticized the licensing conditions in private and in
>> public (IETF mike) several times, months ago, and nothing happened.
>> Suggests to me one of three things: (1) google is a large company and
>> decisions take time, or (2) google's legal is currently occupied with
>> other stuff, or (3) that the choice of language is intentional, and
>> intended to prevent forks.  Take your pick.
>> Stephan
> Stephan,
> If the license wording is meant to limit the patent grant only to
> software implementations, then I will raise this issue myself, because
> that's a glaring hole and huge setback to the adoption of the format. 
> If I find anything out about this, I'll report back here.  The fact that
> there are already hardware implementations, though, seems to imply that
> in reality, this is not the case.  Google has been open to changing the
> licensing situation of VP8 in the past when issues like this were
> brought up.
> I do not, however, want this to be a point of FUD.  I would welcome
> anyone from Google on this list authorized to speak about this to
> clarify this ASAP.  A public statement like that should allow us to
> discount this worry.
A quicker follow-up than a requested, and by someone from outside of Google.

The first license you linked to appears to cover the libvpx
implementation itself.  It's solely a software implementation, obviously.

The VP8 bitstream is licensed separately, here:

And that appears to make no distinction between software or hardware. 
It relates to the VP8 format (a.k.a., the bitstream) itself.  If I'm
wrong, hopefully someone can correct me.

Libre Video