Re: [rtcweb] Proposal for H.263 baseline codec

Stephan Wenger <> Thu, 29 March 2012 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B06221E80AC for <>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.786
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.786 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.187, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pbWfD7bZd+Oy for <>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DCDC21E80C5 for <>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:53:09 +0000
Received: from mail59-am1 (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C683240521; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:53:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -24
X-BigFish: PS-24(z11d7lzbb2dI9371I41c5N98dKzz1202h1082kzz1033IL8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839h944h)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI;; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
Received-SPF: pass (mail59-am1: domain of designates as permitted sender) client-ip=;; ; ;
Received: from mail59-am1 (localhost.localdomain []) by mail59-am1 (MessageSwitch) id 1333032786996525_15970; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:53:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5BE6A0059; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:53:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:53:05 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.16.0135.002; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:53:04 +0000
From: Stephan Wenger <>
To: Basil Mohamed Gohar <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Proposal for H.263 baseline codec
Thread-Index: AQHNDaWq9kefa/omnUePrLHPwXaly5aBQduAgAAyeID//9/OgIAAKWCA
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:53:03 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposal for H.263 baseline codec
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:53:18 -0000

On 3.29.2012 16:24 , "Basil Mohamed Gohar" <>

>On 03/29/2012 10:20 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>> The second part of your sentence may or may not be true, depending on
>> relationship with google, your willingness to use the webm
>> in unchanged form, and other factors.  Please see the webm license
>> conditions, which AFAIK can be found here:
>Correct.  I think you are referring to this part, explicitly:
>> If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree
>> to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including
>> a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this
>> implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this
>> implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent
>> infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent
>> rights granted to you under this License for this implementation of
>> VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
>Perhaps I assumed that that is a very reasonable part of the license.
>That is, if you are suing someone alleging a patent infringement within
>VP8, you are no longer granted the license to use VP8's patented
>technologies that Google owns.

Yes, that's one issue.  Call it personal preference for different type of
reciprocity conditions :-)  (I could rant about it for hours, but let's
continue to pretend that this is mostly a technical mailing list)

The other issue, though (the fact that the license grant extends only to
the VP8 implementation as provided by google, and does not extent to
derivative works such as hardware implementations) should be moderately
alarming even for an open source person.  With respect to this clause, I
will note that I criticized the licensing conditions in private and in
public (IETF mike) several times, months ago, and nothing happened.
Suggests to me one of three things: (1) google is a large company and
decisions take time, or (2) google's legal is currently occupied with
other stuff, or (3) that the choice of language is intentional, and
intended to prevent forks.  Take your pick.
>rtcweb mailing list