Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft

[Marshall Eubanks <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Rob Glidden <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Chris:
>
> No, not at all, I'm saying something altogether different: I am saying all
> these kinds of characterizations supporting old text, however framed, cast
> wrong procedural net, for multiple reasons.
>
> Proposed new text is straightforward and should be unobjectionable:
>
>
> "The REQUIRED video codec should be a royalty-free codec which has been
> specified by a recognized standards process such as MPEG or other
> due-process standards group and provide reviewable substantiation of its
> royalty-free status."
>

I like this text, except that "royalty-free" is like "non-encumbered
by patents" and other such text - you can never be sure.
All you can want is one that _claims_ to be royalty-free, and the text
should reflect that IMO.

I also don't think that "and provide" scans very well as is.

So, how about

"The REQUIRED video codec should be a codec which has been both
 specified and asserted to be royalty-free by a recognized standards
process such as MPEG or other
due-process standards group and should provide reviewable substantiation of its
royalty-free status."

Regards
Marshall


> Rob
>
>
> On 12/16/2011 5:35 PM, Chris Blizzard wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> From: "Rob Glidden"<[e-mail]>
>>> To: "Chris Blizzard"<[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: "Harald Alvestrand"<[e-mail]>, [e-mail], "Cary
>>> Bran"<[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 10:45:59 AM
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
>>> Chris:
>>>
>>> "MPEG-LA-is-a-monopolist" characterization casts wrong procedural net,
>>> among reasons pending lawsuits -- one more reason to be accurate and
>>> follow procedure.
>>>
>> Sorry for the follow-up, but just to be clear, this is not what I said.
>>  What I said is this:
>>
>>
>>>> To get at the heart of the issue, I think that many people would
>>>> like to use H.264 support as the default. It's lower-friction and
>>>> widely deployed. But that's entirely up to the rights holders for
>>>> that technology. That's why there's a date and a specific call-out
>>>> to MPEG LA as the monopoly rights holder in the text. It's up to
>>>> them to decide, and they have three months from tomorrow to do so.
>>>>
>>>> --Chris
>>>>
>> MPEG LA is the monopoly licensor for H.264.  Patents are legal
>> government-sponsored monopolies and they license many of the patents for
>> that technology.  (Although they clearly disallow the assertion that they
>> have all of them via their license!)  "Monopolist" as you put it has a
>> somewhat criminal tone in normal usage and would be the result of their
>> actions with that monopoly in place.  I want to be clear that I did not mean
>> that and that's your interpretation, not mine.
>>
>> --Chris
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb