IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] H.261

Stefan Slivinski <sslivinski@lifesize.com> Fri, 22 November 2013 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <sslivinski@lifesize.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 C95091AE25E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:14:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 SFlWmBl8z_Fm for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:14:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na3sys009aog108.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog108.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7345B1AE0F6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:14:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.lifesize.com ([207.114.244.10]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob108.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUo+7MJIcXPYpfFiqNkGGzflo2ciUU+2A@postini.com; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:14:47 PST
Received: from ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com ([fe80::edad:d9e3:99d1:8109]) by ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com ([fe80::edad:d9e3:99d1:8109%14]) with mapi; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:11:02 -0600
From: Stefan Slivinski <sslivinski@lifesize.com>
To: "miconda@gmail.com" <miconda@gmail.com>, Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:11:00 -0600
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] H.261
Thread-Index: Ac7nvV2Os5Pzwy5hRwy2s1xvawJbYQAAJ3hw
Message-ID: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E670F@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
References: <CEB4350B.1E7B2%mzanaty@cisco.com> <20131122171020.GY3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66AF@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528F9DAD.3030300@googlemail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66DE@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FAAA8.8060807@googlemail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66FE@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FB79F.8090405@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <528FB79F.8090405@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.261
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: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 20:14:57 -0000

As I'm sure everyone in this group is aware, Cisco has provided an open source implementation of H.264 and they will cover the patent licensing fees.  Seems like this would be a good option for the little guys worried about dealing with the mpeg-la

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla [mailto:miconda@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 11:59 AM
To: Stefan Slivinski; Maik Merten; rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.261


On 11/22/13 8:30 PM, Stefan Slivinski wrote:
> No, this is taking things to extremes.  This codec hasn't been used in any industry for 15 years.  The entire video conferencing industry uses H.264, the broadcast industry uses H.264, the streaming video industry uses H.264, facetime, skype both use H.264.  The list goes on and on.  There is not a single company is existence today using H.261 over H.264 because of patent fears.  It is asinine that this is even being discussed.

You misunderstood the issue. h264 has already an incompatible licensing policy for many situations, especially towards open source. Not using
h264 is not about fears of new patents, but because of the conditions imposed by exiting patents.

The vp8 vs h261 is actually the case when today none of them has a known/final incompatible license, but of course, the future is not known. Against vp8 there are some claims, but none with a final decision in court (some already dismissed in early stages).

Daniel

--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status