Re: [rtcweb] Reference implementation of software codecs

[Maik Merten <[e-mail]>]

FWIW, I think I found a BSD-stlye H.261 implementation, which appears to 
include contributions from Cisco:

http://mpeg4ip.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mpeg4ip/mpeg4ip/server/mp4live/h261/encoder-h261.cpp?revision=1.12&view=markup

A BSD-style implementation thus wouldn't have to start from scratch, 
albeit some extensive massaging may be needed to plug it into a WebRTC 
context.


Maik


Am 18.11.2013 18:38, schrieb cowwoc:
>
> Okay, so I believe this is an open issue. I've changed the topic to
> avoid hijacking the old thread.
>
> Gili
>
> On 18/11/2013 12:14 PM, Maik Merten wrote:
>> Regarding H.261, apart from ffmpeg there's also a maintained
>> implementation over at
>>
>> http://sourceforge.net/p/opalvoip/code/29319/tree/opal/trunk/plugins/video/H.261-vic/h261vic.cxx
>>
>>
>> which is covered by the Mozilla Public License 1.0
>> (http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/1.0/).
>>
>> "3.7. Larger Works.
>> You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code
>> not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger
>> Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the
>> requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Code."
>>
>> The H.261 *en*coder of that project looks rather primitive (only
>> generating I-frames), but the *de*coder should be feature-complete.
>> Perhaps that's something to build upon.
>>
>> I would also suspect that complete and battle-tested implementations
>> gather dust at some vendors of telco stuff, but nobody seems to have
>> open sourced one.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maik
>>
>>
>> Am 18.11.2013 17:44, schrieb cowwoc:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb