Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Thu, 11 December 2014 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE0611A8775 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:53:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dgcw2s6vYPFd for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:53:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f169.google.com (mail-vc0-f169.google.com [209.85.220.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A3231A888A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:53:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id hy10so2868392vcb.14 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:53:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=tYg6LMPqVjcZ20b0mWMnzBzktLlpbWI2Vy6oOc9Q8Js=; b=ic7GuzWGeqFPF4K1h/lA6giqCJVXpUov+42qithC83N39aLytO+eL3UxvrnV6EsJMU A6JSOtO4UXUrf+UAG/ghWsPAj10RbpdvvkWSpYCYElt8MfmmJSlPe4k8r1L0oGfS9M/J J0MJm6/jWcAng8SfxOhvnTbgvPk/Wf+uArq3AUs9FxfIqesLM64yCwXm8Op/PABjDnBk RSZxH0isOJwW+TKluVqeiDnuO20weSeMRjSkpDNQLddrWd6tE8UCFIrmTXIZDktNwIcM w2Dr38gebKbDSlJa+ZrI1vRrQmfFWbImVa8MYbctYgVqBU0BD54wvPrhBMYVHgoTTNz0 fKtg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm/2uC/iIVGrg8uff6kOurL9mV9Hmnd5pff+fdPHTNpwfahENfN5SXDgyj9e3TlwEaD1+2e
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.178.3 with SMTP id bk3mr466843vcb.16.1418324017970; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:53:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.139.9 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:53:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgQzkE3j-s2fdho9GBgTb4-bgCHqoMR3L0RP5QkRoqqZSQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <54820E74.90201@mozilla.com> <54861AD6.8090603@reavy.org> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998AC05@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <63BC3D6D-03A1-41C2-B92D-C8DD57DC51DB@nostrum.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998ADF1@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <87d27r9o0a.fsf_-_@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <CABkgnnVYNjYAM=WhpuURHMUkU4mtT7E3a5yvqSG7+fGKXKOoNw@mail.gmail.com> <87iohisl7h.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <CAD5OKxs-L+1J7csFtTMThn+EF10kkAe_4-kpZ8jj59qmBV=CGQ@mail.gmail.com> <20141211183248.GE47023@verdi> <CAL02cgQzkE3j-s2fdho9GBgTb4-bgCHqoMR3L0RP5QkRoqqZSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:53:37 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL02cgRcqHdVr0g28DMLQdpPnXeH6FwUVitQRBhHmGuAcmcMsA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1d37044958f0509f54b12
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/g73SMmTAqQkV_3uWFbrflxB_2oQ
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 11 Dec 2014 18:53:42 -0000

Just to clarify: The above messages closing the thread were with my RAI AD
hat on, so as a matter of IETF process.

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:

> Let me re-iterate: This thread is closed.
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:32 PM, John Leslie <john@jlc.net> wrote:
>
>> Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
>> >...
>> > In case of H.264, as far as our company is concerned, this implies that
>> we
>> > cannot license H.264 IPR. To work around this, we are planning to offer
>> > H.264 in client software on the platforms where H.264 is provided by the
>> > platform itself or via OpenH264. In both cases, we consider H.264
>> licensing
>> > will be something that will occur between the end user and the platform
>> > provider, or, in case of OpenH264, between the end user and Cisco. If
>> end
>> > users decides to ignore the H.264 licensing terms, as they typically do,
>> > this is between the end user and whoever provided them with the H.264
>> > license. We will not license H.264 ourselves or provide any H.264
>> licenses
>> > from us to our customers. In anything that we license directly to our
>> > customers or operate ourselves (which typically means professional
>> > conferencing services), we are planning to support VP8 only and will not
>> > claim WebRTC compliance. End points which implement H.264 only will not
>> be
>> > fully supported by the services we operate and would only be provided
>> with
>> > limited feature set that can be enabled based on peer-to-peer
>> > communications or relay without the need for transcoding or
>> > other H.264 related server functionality. This is why the currently
>> offered
>> > compromise works for us even though H.264 licensing policy is less then
>> > ideal.
>> > _____________
>> > Roman Shpount
>>
>>    This explanation is definitely helpful. Thank you!
>>
>> --
>> John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
>