Re: [rtcweb] The MTI Codec Questions (what to ask and how to ask them)

[Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>]

2014-11-06 6:14 GMT+01:00 Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>:
>> Agreed, the worst aspect of any adoption of H264 is that it makes it
>> significantly more difficult to
>> produce a custom ’secure’ build of firefox that has been independently
>> reviewed for special use-cases
>> (press, humanitarian workers etc).
>
>
> Why is this true? We currently build OpenH264 and then send the binary to
> Cisco but keep a hash for comparison. Why is it more difficult to review
> this?


If somebody expects that teams like Debian will accept such a hack he
is really wrong. I know the Industry does not care about that, but
software packagers (specially Open Source software packagers) will not
trust this hack from Cisco regardless it has been "adopted" by
Mozilla. When I talk to veteran Firefox users (not involved in WebRTC
at all) about the "binary topic" they just cry.

Said that, I'm pretty sure nobody will comment on the previous proposal:

"If the 'Industry' wants to make MTI a codec they control, then they
have to make it completely free and open to everyone."

Is so hard to understand that if the W3C mandates a MTI codec then
such a codec MUST be free and open to everyone (without royalties)?
This is the W3C, not the 3GPP/GSMA. There is no room for binary stuff
or royalties here.




-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[e-mail]>