Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options (was: Re: confirming sense of the room: mti codec)

Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com> Wed, 10 December 2014 23:13 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
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 923691A001B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:13:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.02
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
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 awH_VtxnN0dz for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:13:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpdg5.aruba.it (smtpdg95.aruba.it [62.149.158.95]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBCF11A1A12 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:13:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rainpc ([82.61.122.170]) by smtpcmd05.ad.aruba.it with bizsmtp id RzDH1p00N3ghNjW01zDJNZ; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 00:13:20 +0100
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 00:13:17 +0100
From: Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Message-ID: <20141211001317.0f8760c8@rainpc>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgRfVowjpLbB-x-j9AU3bL_EOGD2E0baesuL=bE-ME=9cQ@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> <CAL02cgRfVowjpLbB-x-j9AU3bL_EOGD2E0baesuL=bE-ME=9cQ@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Meetecho
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.10.1 (GTK+ 2.24.24; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/iB0WG4CLPGAuwMx4M4ebFNIHbJ4
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options (was: Re: confirming sense of the room: mti codec)
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: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:13:25 -0000

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:04:46 -0500
Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:

> +1
> 
> This conversation is out of scope for this mailing list.
> 


And yet it does raise some flags, though. Had I blindly trusted the claims that have been made on this ML (not out of scope at the time, apparently) about what the infamous plugin allegedly provided, I could have ended up offering services based on openH264 and hopefully try and make some money out of it: only to find myself suitable in the process, and in perfectly good faith. I don't think raising awareness on such a delicate issue that matters to the discussion is so out of scope.

Lorenzo


> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On 10 December 2014 at 13:46, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> > > This rules out commercial use.  Doesn't this fail the “reasonable”
> > > part of RAND because it is expected that commercial end users obtain a
> > > separate patent license of their own (which is not part of a product
> > > that can be purchased)?  If this is still considered “reasonable”, is
> > > the fact relevant that all published MPEG-LA material about H.264
> > > refers to patent licensing in a broadcasting context (either the
> > > production side, or the receiver side)?  This strongly suggests to me
> > > that they may lack the rights to license H.264 for use in video
> > > conferencing applications.
> >
> > I recommend that you consult counsel on these sorts of questions.
> > Seeking legal opinion on an internet mailing list might not produce
> > the best results.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >


-- 
Lorenzo Miniero, COB

Meetecho s.r.l.
Web Conferencing and Collaboration Tools
http://www.meetecho.com