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

["Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <[e-mail]>]

I think you mean open source in general, not openh264 specifically. The same can be done with VP8, Linux, or any widely used project. So should we 10-finger every contributor and demand a license to every thought they ever had or will have? Contributions to the openh264 project will certainly be thoroughly reviewed, not just by Cisco, but hopefully a much larger community. But it is unreasonable to expect reviewers to sniff out potential IPR trojans. It is also unreasonable to demand review of the contributors rather than their contributions. Open source projects would grind to a halt if they succumb to such FUD.

Mo


On 12/12/13, 5:25 PM, cowwoc <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

openh264 is a patent troll's wet dream.

If I were a troll, I'd fork openh264, contribute some juicy code sniplet that enhances the codec, and wait for Cisco to integrate it into the official version. 3-6 months later, I'd sue everyone who uses it.

Note that "everyone who uses it" refers to the thousands of companies who are expected to compile the codec for themselves under the false impression that they are safe because they have under 100k deployments. Because Cisco makes no attempt to review the code for IPR, and many companies are expected to use it, it makes it a very attractive target for patent trolls. And good luck linking the contributor back to the troll. There are plenty ways of contributing code by proxy or anonymously to avoid detection.

I bring this up to point out that you cannot really treat the software license independently from IPR. The two go hand in hand. If you're going to accept contributions from the public, you're going to have to review it for IPR, and good luck going down that road...

Gili

On 12/12/2013 4:55 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Ron <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 03:04:31PM -0500, Roman Shpount wrote:
> I think it would be beneficial to have a place on openh264 site where the
> site owners (Cisco) would specifically ask any third party to disclose
> their IPR claims against this implementation.

We so far can't even get the organisations who have active contributors
in this WG and which hold H.264 patents to comply with their obligations
for disclosure under the IETF requirements.[1]

Why would you expect a note on a Cisco website to work any better?


If I am getting sued by somebody for IPR violation due to use of Cisco binary and if there is a place where the person suing me could announce that this binary violates their IPR rights, but failed to do so, I can use it in my defense that they never tried to informed me and this is form of entrapment. IANAL, but from experience this helps.

At least active WG contributors are not suing me yet.
_____________
Roman Shpount





_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb