Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

[Maik Merten <[e-mail]>]

Regarding H.261, apart from ffmpeg there's also a maintained 
implementation over at

http://sourceforge.net/p/opalvoip/code/29319/tree/opal/trunk/plugins/video/H.261-vic/h261vic.cxx

which is covered by the Mozilla Public License 1.0 
(http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/1.0/).

"3.7. Larger Works.
You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code 
not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work 
as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements 
of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Code."

The H.261 *en*coder of that project looks rather primitive (only 
generating I-frames), but the *de*coder should be feature-complete. 
Perhaps that's something to build upon.

I would also suspect that complete and battle-tested implementations 
gather dust at some vendors of telco stuff, but nobody seems to have 
open sourced one.



Maik


Am 18.11.2013 17:44, schrieb cowwoc:
>
> Looks good! I'd like to get a clarification which affects multiple
> options, but #10 most of all.
>
> Does the WG commit to providing reference implementations that supports
> VP8, H.264, H.261 with a commercially-friendly license? I am talking
> strictly about the software license, not the codec IPR. Meaning, libx264
> requires a GPL license and ffmpeg requires either a LGPL or GPL license.
> I would argue that libx264 is a non-starter for commercial use on any
> platform (due to GPL) and ffmpeg is not usable under iOS (since LGPL +
> static linking is equivalent to GPL). It is my understanding that the
> current WebRTC reference implementation is published under the BSD
> license. I am asking for the final reference implementation (supporting
> these codecs) to be published under the same license.
>
> I'm not saying that anyone has to ship a reference implementation
> supporting all 3 codecs, but rather that the WG should publish a
> reference implementation demonstrating how it can be done and proving
> interoperability actually works as expected.
>
> Thanks,
> Gili
>
> On 18/11/2013 7:45 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>> WG,
>>
>> The current list of proposed alternative are the following one:
>>
>>   The following alternatives has been proposed:
>>
>>    1. All entities MUST support H.264
>>    2. All entities MUST support VP8
>>    3. All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>>    4. Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST
>>       support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>>    5. All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>>    6. All entities MUST support H.261
>>    7. There is no MTI video codec
>>    8. 5+6, i.e. All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST
>>       support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>>    9. All entities MUST support Theora.
>>   10. All entities SHOULD support both H.264 and VP8. All entities MUST
>>       at least implement one of those. Entities that do not support both
>>       H.264 and VP8 MUST implement H.261.
>>
>> The deadline to propose additional alternatives are: 27th of November
>> 2013
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Magnus
>>
>> On 2013-11-13 21:23, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> I hope everybody had a safe trip back home after Vancouver.
>>>
>>> As you all know, we need to make progress regarding the selection of the
>>> MTI video codec. The following are some of the alternatives we have on
>>> the table:
>>>
>>>   1. All entities MUST support H.264
>>>   2. All entities MUST support VP8
>>>   3. All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>>>   4. Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>>>   5. All entities MUST support either H.264 or VP8
>>>   6. All entities MUST support H.261
>>>   7. There is no MTI video codec
>>>
>>> If you want the group to consider additional alternatives to the ones
>>> above, please let the group know within the following *two weeks*. At
>>> that point, the chairs will be listing all the received alternatives and
>>> proposing a process to select one among them.
>>>
>>> Please, send your proposals in an email to the list. You do not need to
>>> write a draft; just send the text you would like to see in the final
>>> document regarding video codecs.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Gonzalo
>>> Responsible AD for this WG
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb