IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] A different perspective on the video codec MTI discussion

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Thu, 14 March 2013 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <btv1==7857ef4b335==HKaplan@acmepacket.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 6139721F8D43 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:39:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 VTxg4mqHhHG0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.acmepacket.com (mx1.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A2A921F8496 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1363282744-03fc200f255b80e0001-4f8tJD
Received: from Mail1.acmepacket.com (mail1.acmepacket.com [10.0.0.21]) by mx1.acmepacket.com with ESMTP id PdW85Lm9HRCkzWJM (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:39:04 -0400 (EDT)
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: HKaplan@acmepacket.com
Received: from MAIL2.acmepacket.com ([169.254.2.222]) by Mail1.acmepacket.com ([169.254.1.130]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.003; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:39:04 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] A different perspective on the video codec MTI discussion
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [rtcweb] A different perspective on the video codec MTI discussion
Thread-Index: AQHOINrRAXo8sskPHEayoYA4tD8vhQ==
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:39:03 +0000
Message-ID: <34944444-4FEB-4AD0-A90D-1EE8C56C0253@acmepacket.com>
References: <CA+23+fE3WRs5SxAUcsjWbxcjzQKxCtW7sdfHtAsbd7MbPyHAtQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAEWS6TJPKXdf7i140wKMZFHBcSVBtCxwzViWYYFgL01D=LdmEg@mail.gmail.com> <F0FCD7D0-969E-46D9-9681-3A64D36F59DF@apple.com> <51420679.2060909@librevideo.org>
In-Reply-To: <51420679.2060909@librevideo.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [216.41.24.34]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <7CA7E7CB2A27EE46B5435993956F545F@acmepacket.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Barracuda-Connect: mail1.acmepacket.com[10.0.0.21]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1363282744
X-Barracuda-Encrypted: AES128-SHA
X-Barracuda-URL: http://spam.acmepacket.com:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at acmepacket.com
X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests=
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.125198 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] A different perspective on the video codec MTI discussion
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: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:40:19 -0000

On Mar 14, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
 wrote:

> I talked about this with direct answers from the MPEG-LA here:
> http://www.librevideo.org/blog/2010/06/14/mpeg-la-answers-some-questions-about-avch-264-licensing/

Interesting - I hadn't realized their license was as viral to 'derivative' works as GPLv3.

So does this mean if a mobile phone vendor had the license for H.264 in their hardware encoder/decoder, and provided an API to applications to use that hardware, that any application using the API would also be a new end-product and have to acquire the license as well?

Likewise, if a web-based app framework such as PhoneGap/Titanium/etc. acquired a license for H.264 and provided an API for using it to their customers'(the app creators) code, that their customers (the app creators) would also need to get the license?

-hadriel

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status