Re: [rtcweb] Cisco to open source its H.264 implementation and absorb MPEG-LA licensing fees

Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com> Wed, 30 October 2013 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
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 1EA8611E8263 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245]
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 RMwTv-iNvu45 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpdg6.aruba.it (smtpdg2.aruba.it [62.149.158.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594ED11E8143 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rainpc ([82.49.174.20]) by smtpcmd02.ad.aruba.it with bizsmtp id jYjK1m0040SmHqA01YjKl4; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 21:43:19 +0100
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 21:43:18 +0100
From: Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
Message-ID: <20131030214318.7ec23c9e@rainpc>
In-Reply-To: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0C4743@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <186CE8D65BA3A741A81A543F936DD0D10A5803D8@xmb-rcd-x07.cisco.com> <20131030201651.79401531@lminiero> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0C4743@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Organization: Meetecho
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.1 (GTK+ 2.24.19; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "Jonathan Rosenberg (jdrosen)" <jdrosen@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Cisco to open source its H.264 implementation and absorb MPEG-LA licensing fees
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: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 20:43:29 -0000

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 20:09:36 +0000
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:

> But to work with VP8 you are also relying on Google's generosity. 
> 
> Google have IPR on VP8; you are relying on a statement from them they will continue to offer it royalty free. 
> 
> Google and Cisco are both reputable organisations, but ultimately you trust who you trust, and I don't see that being different whichever path you follow.
> 
> Keith
> 


True, but that "royalty free" makes all the difference in the world. I can make my own ice cream, if I want (and there's people doing this).

Lorenzo



> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org 
> > [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lorenzo Miniero
> > Sent: 30 October 2013 19:17
> > To: Jonathan Rosenberg (jdrosen)
> > Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Cisco to open source its H.264 
> > implementation and absorb MPEG-LA licensing fees
> > 
> > Il giorno Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:28:50 +0000 "Jonathan Rosenberg 
> > (jdrosen)" <jdrosen@cisco.com> ha scritto:
> > 
> > > I'd like to make an announcement material to the 
> > conversations around 
> > > MTI video codecs in rtcweb.
> > > 
> > > Cisco is announcing today that we will take our H.264 
> > implementation, 
> > > and open source it under BSD license terms. Development and 
> > > maintenance will be overseen by a board from industry and the open 
> > > source community.  Furthermore, we will provide a binary 
> > form suitable 
> > > for inclusion in applications across a number of different 
> > operating 
> > > systems (Windows, MacOS, Linux x86, Linux ARM and Android ARM), and 
> > > make this binary module available for download from the 
> > Internet. We 
> > > will not pass on our MPEG-LA licensing costs for this module, and 
> > > based on the current licensing environment, this will 
> > effectively make 
> > > H.264 free for use on supported platforms.
> > > 
> > > We believe that this contribution to the community can help address 
> > > the concerns many have raised around selection of H.264 as MTI. I 
> > > firmly believe that with H.264 we can achieve maximal 
> > interoperability 
> > > and now, do it with open source and for free (well, at least for 
> > > others - its not free for Cisco :)) More information on the open 
> > > source project can be found at http://www.openh264.org, which is 
> > > sparse now but more coming soon.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Thx,
> > > Jonathan R.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Jonathan Rosenberg, PhD
> > > VP, CTO Collaboration
> > > Cisco Systems
> > > jdrosen@cisco.com
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > Am I really the only one not that enthusiastic about this?
> > 
> > Don't get me wrong, I appreciated Cisco's statement. I just 
> > don't think it changes anything. It doesn't make H.264 more 
> > open (or less closed, if you prefer) than it was before. It 
> > just says that, if you download their module from them when 
> > installing your stuff, your applications can use it to 
> > encode/decode H.264 and not worry about fees (hoping with 
> > your fingers crossed that the platform is supported, that 
> > is). I still cannot use x264, ffmpeg, 
> > randomsuperawesomeopensourceH264codec or even a version of 
> > Cisco's H.264 code I compile myself: at least, not if I don't 
> > want (or just can't afford) to pay license fees, that is. 
> > Which means we're back to step one again. Under those 
> > premises, I still think it's not MTI material.
> > 
> > The problem is, I don't want to rely on Cisco's generosity[*] 
> > (or anyone else's, for that matter) to work with video, 
> > especially when we're building an (allegedly) open web 
> > communication framework. What if their module sucks? I'm sure 
> > it won't, but I still don't have any choice, there are no 
> > free alternatives. Besides, we have no assurance at all that 
> > this is something we can rely on. If Cisco wakes up in a 
> > couple of months and decides it's all not worth it and shuts 
> > all of this down, what happens to WebRTC implementations, to 
> > companies that decided to depend on it, to their 
> > clients/customers? We wait for another generous "mecenate", 
> > while big companies thrive? We complain on social networks? 
> > We cry at the moon?  And this is not such a remote
> > possibility: after all (and I'm quoting one of Jonathan's 
> > latest tweets here), "We cannot say forever but unless things 
> > change we will continue this indefinitely". If this is 
> > supposed to convince me H.264 is now the best solution as MTI 
> > for WebRTC then, especially as a developer, I'm not convinced.
> > 
> > I see this opening more as the (welcome, no denying that) 
> > software equivalent of daddy pinching you on the cheek and 
> > giving you a coupon for your "free ice cream (for a while)". 
> > Everyone loves free stuff, I do as well. But IMHO it's not 
> > more than that, a free gift to convince the unconvinced. 
> > Ancient Romans would have called this "Panem et Circenses", 
> > and according to all the enthusiastic posts on Twitter and 
> > the like, I guess it still works: people are entertained.
> > 
> > Make the codec REALLY free, without any license fee required 
> > at all, and then you'll entertain me as well.
> > 
> > Lorenzo
> > 
> > 
> > [*] I must shamefully admit I sniggered a bit when I read the 
> > "it's not free for Cisco" part, as if you were really paying 
> > for this. I have trouble thinking Cisco doesn't already pay 
> > the infamous cap every year.
> > You're doing something you really don't have to (and we 
> > really appreciate this, make no mistake), but that's not the 
> > same thing.
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> > 

-- 
Lorenzo Miniero, COB

Meetecho s.r.l.
Web Conferencing and Collaboration Tools
http://www.meetecho.com