Re: [rtcweb] Google VP8 Patent Grant for third parties [Was Re:Proposal for H.263 baseline codec]

Serge,

Thank you very much for this.  To go a step forward, I would encourage
that this be made more legally obvious, because a reference to a single
e-mail on an "obscure" mailing list (relative to what most people are
familiar with) will not provide the deepest levels of assurance to those
not actively involved with the WebRTC project.

I would humbly request an unambiguous statement somewhere on the WebM
project website that makes this assertion clear, because what is
publicly available is, at the very least, ambiguous, and at the worst,
"evidence of Google's nefarious scheme to pounce on hardware
implementers after wide adoption".

On 04/03/2012 01:54 PM, Serge Lachapelle wrote:
> *[Forking the thread]*
> *
>
>
> *
> *Hello folks,*
>
> Google confirms that the VP8 patent grant applies to both third-party
> hardware and software implementations of VP8. 
> *
> *
> *Google encourages the community to create hardware implementations of
> VP8, and has recently blogged about a number of new hardware
> implementations on the WebM blog (
> http://blog.webmproject.org/2012/03/webm-gaining-momentum-in-hardware.html
> ). *
> *
> *
> *Google is quite proud of what the community has done with VP8 and
> looks forward to seeing more implementations of VP8 in both hardware
> and software. *
> *
> *
> *Regards,*
> *
> *
> */Serge Lachapelle,
> Google, Stockholm*
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 16:53, Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org
> <mailto:stewe@stewe.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 3.29.2012 16:24 , "Basil Mohamed Gohar"
>     <basilgohar@librevideo.org <mailto:basilgohar@librevideo.org>>
>     wrote:
>
>     >On 03/29/2012 10:20 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>     >> The second part of your sentence may or may not be true,
>     depending on
>     >>your
>     >> relationship with google, your willingness to use the webm
>     >>implementation
>     >> in unchanged form, and other factors.  Please see the webm license
>     >> conditions, which AFAIK can be found here:
>     >> http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/
>     >Correct.  I think you are referring to this part, explicitly:
>     >> If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order
>     or agree
>     >> to the institution of patent litigation against any entity
>     (including
>     >> a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this
>     >> implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this
>     >> implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent
>     >> infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent
>     >> rights granted to you under this License for this implementation of
>     >> VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
>     >Perhaps I assumed that that is a very reasonable part of the license.
>     >That is, if you are suing someone alleging a patent infringement
>     within
>     >VP8, you are no longer granted the license to use VP8's patented
>     >technologies that Google owns.
>
>     Yes, that's one issue.  Call it personal preference for different
>     type of
>     reciprocity conditions :-)  (I could rant about it for hours, but
>     let's
>     continue to pretend that this is mostly a technical mailing list)
>
>     The other issue, though (the fact that the license grant extends
>     only to
>     the VP8 implementation as provided by google, and does not extent to
>     derivative works such as hardware implementations) should be
>     moderately
>     alarming even for an open source person.  With respect to this
>     clause, I
>     will note that I criticized the licensing conditions in private and in
>     public (IETF mike) several times, months ago, and nothing happened.
>     Suggests to me one of three things: (1) google is a large company and
>     decisions take time, or (2) google's legal is currently occupied with
>     other stuff, or (3) that the choice of language is intentional, and
>     intended to prevent forks.  Take your pick.
>     Stephan
>
>     >_______________________________________________
>     >rtcweb mailing list
>     >rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>     >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>     >
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>     Google Sweden AB | Kungsbron 2, SE-111 22 Stockholm | Org. nr.
>     556656-6880 
>
>     Apparently, this footer is required in Europe. Apologies. This
>     email may be confidential or privileged.  If you received this
>     communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone
>     else,please erase all copies and attachments, and please let me
>     know that it went to the wrong person.  Thanks.
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Serge Lachapelle | Product Manager | sergel@google.com
> <mailto:sergel@google.com> | +46 732 01 22 32
>
>
> -- 
> Serge Lachapelle | Product Manager | sergel@google.com
> <mailto:sergel@google.com> | +46 732 01 22 32
> Google Sweden AB | Kungsbron 2, SE-111 22 Stockholm | Org. nr.
> 556656-6880 
>
> Apparently, this footer is required in Europe. Apologies. This email
> may be confidential or privileged.  If you received this communication
> by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else,please erase all
> copies and attachments, and please let me know that it went to the
> wrong person.  Thanks.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org