Re: [rtcweb] On the topic of MTI video codecs

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Fri, 01 November 2013 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
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 2DE0511E8159 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 08:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.623
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.623 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 4D3ZqJ+Rm60q for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 08:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B01221F86B9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 08:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.4.100] (unknown [128.107.239.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 64B4122E257; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 11:56:06 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <CAPvvaaJjHDHaocbAs+WR7pbqjECwpcs8bT4M_GgCwtFFzNqdVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 09:56:04 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <32DDCDFD-C4AF-4714-BD1A-580D99DD9FCF@iii.ca>
References: <527147FF.5010506@nostrum.com> <C72DB04F-F363-45A9-A51F-31900037C239@vipadia.com> <C81F0BD3-F5E6-4E1A-955D-16D55E698BD1@edvina.net> <5272C6C8.3070006@gmail.com> <CABcZeBM6T0a9iLHVujzAiwFi5X5=S0oNK=xR3=FkHM2wi5bngQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgTwJwf27PuxGhhZAZgDN2jguxhNFBNPeJC4W1dwd5jzYA@mail.gmail.com> <5273A746.4060504@viagenie.ca> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0C5BA1@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <CAPvvaaJjHDHaocbAs+WR7pbqjECwpcs8bT4M_GgCwtFFzNqdVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] On the topic of MTI video codecs
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: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 15:56:52 -0000

On Nov 1, 2013, at 9:14 AM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:27 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
>> 
>> That ownership means they are also take responsibility for any of the liabilities arising
>> from defective code they so distribute. I see no reason why Cisco would want to do
>> that under anything but a controlled evironment, which would have its own set of
>> non-trivial costs.
> 
> They could have the same by distributing x264 binaries that they have
> compiled by themselves.
> 
> One of the things in the Cisco grand, that sound a bit incoherent to
> me is their declared will on building a healthy open source community
> around their implementation. Specifically, what baffles me is that
> there is already a very well oiled implementation that does a lot more
> than just baseline. That implementation already has a vibrant
> community, significant popularity and, again, it sounds like it would
> be considerably superior to what Cisco are planning on rolling out in
> OpenH264.
> 
> In addition to wondering at the pure waste of resources (with a casual
> reference to NIH), potential contributors could legitimately ask "why
> would we contribute to your project when you made the exact opposite
> choice when faced with the decision?".
> 
> Emil

We considered just using x264 (I like x264 myself) that but Mozilla told us it would not work for them because it is GPL.