Re: [rtcweb] Cisco to open source its H.264 implementation and absorb MPEG-LA licensing fees

["Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <[e-mail]>]

Cisco and the openh264 project is certainly not trying to mislead anyone on the state of IPR on the openh264 project. When you go to http://www.openh264.org/ , the front page discusses the MPEG-LA licensing and make it clear how things are provided. The http://www.openh264.org/faq.html adds more information. The front page of the project also has a link to Cisco's public statements on the subject at http://blogs.cisco.com/collaboration/open-source-h-264-removes-barriers-webrtc . That blog posting also make it clear that relation between the open source and MPEG-LA patent licensing. 

The definition I use for Open Source is the one provided by http://opensource.org/. Largely I use this because I think they have the longest standing definition that has the widest consensus but also they have the trade mark for the term. 

Code can have patents that apply to it and still be Open Source. VP8 and Opus are examples of this. Code can have patents that are not royalty free that apply to it and still be Open Source. x264 is an example of this. Code can be BSD licensed and have patents that apply to it. openh264 is an example of that. 

The MPEG-LA licenses allow people to to fork and build and run things in small quantities. This allows developers to build products and try things out without any trouble before they have to license things. Setting small quantities at a hundred thousand seems pretty generous to me. So I disagree that people that fork and build this are automatically running afoul of the MPEG-LA. And people in the open source community might want to give some thought to how x264 and ffmeg projects work and how long they have been working this way. 

I agree misleading people about if something is Open Source or not is not cool in my book either. If anyone thinks the openh264.org code is not BSD licensed, send me facts on why and we can make sure that it is. 



On Dec 11, 2013, at 5:05 PM, cowwoc <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Cullen,
> 
> Could you please respond to Engel Nyst's comment on this thread? He wrote:
> 
> "I am concerned about the fake appearances Cisco is giving. The code "appears" to be BSD-licensed, and github repository gives no indication to well intended people that in reality it's not. Forking the repository and building a derivative release *already runs afoul* of MPEG-LA restrictions and exposes people to uncertainty and being chased for fees, when it's a natural thing to do. 
> Misleading people that an implementation is open source when it's not is an unacceptable action in my book, under any shape or form; and I will keep short here as to other practical scenarios and issues that it brings. "
> 
> What is Cisco's official position on this?
> 
> Thank you,
> Gili
> 
> On 11/12/2013 2:08 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>> I would like to point out that Cisco has published the initial source code for the H.264 codec. You can find it from the source code links at http://www.openh264.org/
>> 
>> 
>> There still lots of work going on build, test system, other architectures etc. If you want to read the code and see what is there, feel free to browse. If you are feeling brave and like living on the bleeding edge, go ahead compile it, and try out. Be warned that significant refactoring is happing as this gets moved to support the binary module. The binary module will not be up till early next year.  There is a bit of information about what is supported at 
>> https://github.com/cisco/openh264/blob/master/README.md The appropriate mailing list for discussing it is [e-mail] and you can subscribe at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/openh264-dev
>>  
>> 
>> There is also a 5 minute video that helps explain the "open source code" and "binary download" and other IPR issues as that seems to cause confusion for folks. You can find it at 
>> http://vimeo.com/cullenfluffyjennings/openh264-ipr
>> 
>> 
>> Cullen
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Oct 30, 2013, at 6:28 AM, Jonathan Rosenberg (jdrosen) 
>> <[e-mail]>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> I’d like to make an announcement material to the conversations around MTI video codecs in rtcweb.
>>>  
>>> Cisco is announcing today that we will take our H.264 implementation, and open source it under BSD license terms. Development and maintenance will be overseen by a board from industry and the open source community.  Furthermore, we will provide a binary form suitable for inclusion in applications across a number of different operating systems (Windows, MacOS, Linux x86, Linux ARM and Android ARM), and make this binary module available for download from the Internet. We will not pass on our MPEG-LA licensing costs for this module, and based on the current licensing environment, this will effectively make H.264 free for use on supported platforms.
>>>  
>>> We believe that this contribution to the community can help address the concerns many have raised around selection of H.264 as MTI. I firmly believe that with H.264 we can achieve maximal interoperability and now, do it with open source and for free (well, at least for others – its not free for Cisco J)
>>> More information on the open source project can be found at 
>>> http://www.openh264.org
>>> , which is sparse now but more coming soon.
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Thx,
>>> Jonathan R.
>>>  
>>> --
>>> Jonathan Rosenberg, PhD
>>> VP, CTO Collaboration
>>> Cisco Systems
>>> 
>>> [e-mail]
>>> 
>>>  
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> 
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> 
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb