Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Thu, 11 December 2014 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E4181A8835 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:32:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HrMXagKE7tqK for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:32:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C93571A87EA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:32:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 679CAC94BD; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:32:48 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:32:48 -0500
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Message-ID: <20141211183248.GE47023@verdi>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <54820E74.90201@mozilla.com> <54861AD6.8090603@reavy.org> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998AC05@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <63BC3D6D-03A1-41C2-B92D-C8DD57DC51DB@nostrum.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998ADF1@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <87d27r9o0a.fsf_-_@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <CABkgnnVYNjYAM=WhpuURHMUkU4mtT7E3a5yvqSG7+fGKXKOoNw@mail.gmail.com> <87iohisl7h.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <CAD5OKxs-L+1J7csFtTMThn+EF10kkAe_4-kpZ8jj59qmBV=CGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxs-L+1J7csFtTMThn+EF10kkAe_4-kpZ8jj59qmBV=CGQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/V-T6SdtRMZQJ-A4rRfLd0VqXkVQ
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 18:32:54 -0000

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
>...
> In case of H.264, as far as our company is concerned, this implies that we
> cannot license H.264 IPR. To work around this, we are planning to offer
> H.264 in client software on the platforms where H.264 is provided by the
> platform itself or via OpenH264. In both cases, we consider H.264 licensing
> will be something that will occur between the end user and the platform
> provider, or, in case of OpenH264, between the end user and Cisco. If end
> users decides to ignore the H.264 licensing terms, as they typically do,
> this is between the end user and whoever provided them with the H.264
> license. We will not license H.264 ourselves or provide any H.264 licenses
> from us to our customers. In anything that we license directly to our
> customers or operate ourselves (which typically means professional
> conferencing services), we are planning to support VP8 only and will not
> claim WebRTC compliance. End points which implement H.264 only will not be
> fully supported by the services we operate and would only be provided with
> limited feature set that can be enabled based on peer-to-peer
> communications or relay without the need for transcoding or
> other H.264 related server functionality. This is why the currently offered
> compromise works for us even though H.264 licensing policy is less then
> ideal.
> _____________
> Roman Shpount

   This explanation is definitely helpful. Thank you!

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>