Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

[Bjoern Hoehrmann <[e-mail]>]

* Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>The current Working Group charter says "the working group will try to
>avoid encumbered technologies that require royalties or other encum-
>brances that would prevent such technologies from being easy to use".
>
>It seems many potential implementers and users would be unable to ob-
>tain H.264 licenses under non-discriminatory and reasonable terms for
>private and commercial use. Current H.264 licensing practises are also
>often unclear and are likely to put various parties at risk.
>
>A simple example for the latter point is the distribution of recorded
>WebRTC sessions on a web site that generates revenue in some form. It
>is likely people are going to do that, but doing so in a legally sound
>manner is often unduly burdensome under current licensing practises.

A practical example for the confusion around the subject is the recent
RfC in the Wikimedia community on H.264 support on their websites. On
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=114053933 the proposal
claims that "Merely distributing MP4 files never requires a patent
license." On https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=114147018
on the other hand the proposal is "If this RFC passes, we would seek to
obtain an "Internet Broadcast" license", and that quote is part of a
larger text trying to address other points of confusion such as whether
users need or have license to upload their H.264 content to begin with.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[e-mail] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: [phone] · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/