Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

There are also proposals where H.261 is only required if one cannot 
implement both VP8 and H.264.

Maik

Am 21.11.2013 22:31, schrieb Stefan Slivinski:
> While I will readily admit this isn't the best analogy I think taking
> this to extremes and suggesting that someone working in their garage is
> at risk of being sued for IP infringement and then using that as
> justification for just requiring H.261 is a bit of a stretch.
>
>
>
>
> *From*: Leon Geyser [mailto:lgeyser@gmail.com]
> *Sent*: Thursday, November 21, 2013 03:21 PM
> *To*: Stefan Slivinski
> *Cc*: rtcweb@ietf.org <rtcweb@ietf.org>
> *Subject*: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
>
> That is a completely different situation. We are talking about the open
> web. Not some propriety disc format controlled by big companies.
> They can deal with IPR easily. Average people who want to work out of
> their garage do want other options even if it isn't the best.
> Besides this has been pointed out millions of times: Nothing stops
> anyone to implement VP8 or H.264 if H.261 is made MTI.
>
>
> On 21 November 2013 23:04, Stefan Slivinski <sslivinski@lifesize.com
> <mailto:sslivinski@lifesize.com>> wrote:
>
>     I think arguing in favor of a legacy codec is completely counter
>     productive to the proliferation of webrtc.  This working group is
>     attempting to avoid dealing with the obvious IPR issues with vp8 and
>     h.264 that any and every webrtc vendor is going to have to deal
>     with.  We are basically saying 'we don't know how to deal with this
>     problem so you're on your own' which is completely the wrong message
>     to send as an organization.
>
>     Can you imagine if the bluray groups said we don't want to deal with
>     h.264 IPR issues so we'll just mandate h.261?
>
>
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com
>     <mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>]
>     Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 02:52 PM
>     To: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org
>     <mailto:basilgohar@librevideo.org>>
>     Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> <rtcweb@ietf.org
>     <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>>
>     Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
>
>     On 21 November 2013 12:48, Basil Mohamed Gohar
>     <basilgohar@librevideo.org <mailto:basilgohar@librevideo.org>> wrote:
>      > Has anyone actually objected to H.261 being the one MTI codec [...] ?
>
>     More than one person has already.
>
>     And I find the argument raised quite compelling.  It's hard to justify
>     spending valuable time and resources on implementing something that
>     crappy.
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>