Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

Mohammed Raad <mohammedsraad@raadtech.com> Sat, 06 December 2014 04:24 UTC

Return-Path: <mohammedsraad@raadtech.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 4605A1A8AB9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 20:24:19 -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 ZK68t6sW_aPF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 20:24:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com (mail-wg0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 497891A8ABB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 20:24:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id l18so2408068wgh.12 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 20:24:14 -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=VFui9UXAQe4jP1NS37gbPLZUApxTsBxJUvFD2sm6p1Q=; b=CYPDNLkgc0TnvZmiq+jZUjXrFbKmebQ5+MEDHzopHtY+RfZXgwHDHr8Sll475BEEec 8OCaPtvvR95OkhdBus+HvnJCE6iRf6hW3ZuQ2njHYOnPteZMjKcZT2xKDrgjFhy4cTCJ +42nT78Zj5sufkBxydkX/y5xFihJLfMcvwYjwPRP1MD3pjd4rEvIz8dSgnc7GbvZSfan ok8z8q4jNu57iqql5xyCaMm1/R9Wuz7z4Y/uoi0KR+WEXvDK9Rq6KGCjpx0FzQUroNtP Eh/XBA9x6NRVeS06WH+ng0H5R+IHvsog41ILtoRgmyT2mDTDZZeQ3Wm0KC7Vw1irvydt Wceg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn2/dHQ8vsxjhDG63Oy0MdK67JmdsGKbr8VWw1/5PtD3PiEWeUvYyNNMlccp1l7RMANG3Ro
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.107.136 with SMTP id hc8mr8941330wib.32.1417839854880; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 20:24:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.6.39 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 20:24:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.6.39 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 20:24:14 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20141206041905.GA19538@hex.shelbyville.oz>
References: <CALiegfkbiN1BAaJyrqOzUeYiViCGHcs6QaM7VVHwUzCUVAuKBw@mail.gmail.com> <32C6F602-6818-4A36-B18E-BF21774F6761@apple.com> <20141205035706.GB21150@hex.shelbyville.oz> <C56EF8F1-FE24-4DF9-9869-49795BD34AC1@apple.com> <CA+9kkMCGp+WdcFomT53qfC2xY8LPYWTtaYiLDBbQ-AZZG1dyOg@mail.gmail.com> <ED88A5CB-C173-46EA-992F-7A57F962B7B0@apple.com> <CA+9kkMDM4SedfnvpYzEKu=+hWi-N_1b-nki=Pkch3sWCFkGqXg@mail.gmail.com> <2CCC7F59-6EB2-4F11-A63E-40C89350E8F2@apple.com> <CA+9kkMB+uEDBTxs4WcfCz-U8-GzSQvD4bdB0ErpK7_+EqSGDig@mail.gmail.com> <E2E87798-8093-489F-933A-891AE2DE425B@apple.com> <20141206041905.GA19538@hex.shelbyville.oz>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2014 06:24:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+E6M0nmj8yHVYuStWKpCVpqhMO8LMOTpZBULE8tFtcY20ioPA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mohammed Raad <mohammedsraad@raadtech.com>
To: Ron <ron@debian.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3bad45e620380509849018
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/lVwrUY_N-qYsX60EIfqTzJ8cNTQ
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
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: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 04:24:19 -0000

Bravo!
On 6 Dec 2014 06:19, "Ron" <ron@debian.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:13:48PM -0800, David Singer wrote:
> > Hi Ted
> >
> > > On Dec 5, 2014, at 14:32 , Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi David,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:42 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > (Much snipped)
> > >
> > >> It really is not similar.  Maybe there are licenses that one or other
> does not carry:  in the Cisco case, we are unaware of any “unwilling to
> license”, whereas for VP8 there is a clear statement that no license can be
> had.
> > >>
> > > In both cases, the participant needs to assess whether they know of
> all the salient IPR, whether they have all the licenses for that IPR which
> they need.   While I am not a lawyer, I imagine that in both cases that
> would involve making a determination of the relevance of the claim as well
> as an analysis of its license terms.  It also involves an assessment of the
> risk that there are other claims which may later arise.
> > >
> > > To my lay person's eyes, the two assessments do look pretty similar.
> It appears, honestly, that you disagree with the results' of others
> assessments, rather than that the assessments do not need to take place in
> both cases.  But I may be misunderstanding your point.
> >
> > OK, let me see if I can persuade you of a qualitative difference.  For
> > each ‘must’, what is the nature and availability of licenses that I
> > might need from those claiming IPR?
> >
> > * H.264: all those claiming IPR offer licenses, though most of them
> > ask for payment * VP8: almost all offer licenses that are either free
> > or effectively so (pre-paid, in the case of the MPEG-LA), but there is
> > one for which no license is available (and it’s not an insignificant
> > company, or one not active in the field, or a small set of patents)
>
>
> Ted was doing such a good job explaining this, that I was just going to
> leave it to him.  But if you're going to call me out to be your champion,
> to make your point here, then ...  ok :>
>
> > For me, that is a major difference.  Clearly for others (e.g. Ron who
> > has said as much), the cost is more significant than the license
> > availability.
>
> No.  You've clearly missed the point here, and you've missed it on the
> order of Astronomical Units, not Barns.  You're going have to repeat
> Free Software 101 I'm afraid.  I've never said anything of the sort.
>
> Let me see if I can explain to you the qualitative difference ...
>
> I'd gladly pay to be able to use VP8.  This isn't about money at all.
> There simply is no amount of money that can remove the real crippling
> costs of being burdened with or indentured to H.264 at present.
>
> This is about Freedom.  The availability of a license for Freedom even.
>
> The freedom to not have to count and track the users of my software.
> The freedom to not have to ask permission to do what I need to do.
> The freedom to not have to worry about anticompetitive patent abuse.
> The freedom to interoperate with anyone else who values freedom.
> The freedom to actually be able to get on with doing genuinely
> interesting things instead of dealing with dinosaur legalese from
> companies that no longer know how to do that.
>
> I could go on, but that's probably enough for you to be able to
> google the concept from there as your first homework assignment.
>
>
> Do you want to know the really fun part about where I learned how
> important these things were?  You're going to get a kick out of
> this.  Go find a manual for an apple][ and turn to the back page!
>
> When you're done studying its schematics and the source for its
> ROM, we can get together for a beer and reminisce about where it
> All Went So Sadly Wrong. :)
>
>
> > I think inserting the ‘must’ here means that companies will either
> > ignore it, or claim not to be a WebRTC Browser, neither of which
> > advance the cause of interoperability at all.
>
> So far we have something like 75% or more of the browser user market
> share on board.  The only players in that game who aren't, are a
> company that won't even tell us whether they plan to implement this
> or not (which clearly makes their opinion vitally important!), and
> another company who at some point at least seemed quite determined
> to fork this effort and go off and do something completely different
> all on their own.
>
> That seems like a pretty good base to start from to me.
>
> Maybe the holdouts will want to come play with us eventually, and
> maybe they won't.  But we can't wait for them forever while they
> learn to tie their shoelaces.  Enough people made that mistake
> with SIP, let's not repeat it again here.
>
>
>   Fiducially,
>   Ron
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>