Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

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
>>
>>
>