Re: [rtcweb] A different perspective on the video codec MTI discussion

Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org> Thu, 14 March 2013 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56D8311E8153 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.953
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.646, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2th+a5oZVznU for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.zaytoon.hidayahonline.net (zaytoon.hidayahonline.net [173.193.202.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C383B11E8129 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.10.40.120] (rrcs-98-103-138-67.central.biz.rr.com [98.103.138.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: basilgohar@librevideo.org) by mail.zaytoon.hidayahonline.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 73736652968 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:03:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <51421106.7040803@librevideo.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:03:50 -0400
From: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
Organization: Libre Video
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130219 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <CA+23+fE3WRs5SxAUcsjWbxcjzQKxCtW7sdfHtAsbd7MbPyHAtQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAEWS6TJPKXdf7i140wKMZFHBcSVBtCxwzViWYYFgL01D=LdmEg@mail.gmail.com> <F0FCD7D0-969E-46D9-9681-3A64D36F59DF@apple.com> <51420679.2060909@librevideo.org> <34944444-4FEB-4AD0-A90D-1EE8C56C0253@acmepacket.com>
In-Reply-To: <34944444-4FEB-4AD0-A90D-1EE8C56C0253@acmepacket.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] A different perspective on the video codec MTI discussion
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:03:55 -0000

On 03/14/2013 01:39 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
>  wrote:
>> I talked about this with direct answers from the MPEG-LA here:
>> http://www.librevideo.org/blog/2010/06/14/mpeg-la-answers-some-questions-about-avch-264-licensing/
> Interesting - I hadn't realized their license was as viral to 'derivative' works as GPLv3.
>
> So does this mean if a mobile phone vendor had the license for H.264 in their hardware encoder/decoder, and provided an API to applications to use that hardware, that any application using the API would also be a new end-product and have to acquire the license as well?
>
> Likewise, if a web-based app framework such as PhoneGap/Titanium/etc. acquired a license for H.264 and provided an API for using it to their customers'(the app creators) code, that their customers (the app creators) would also need to get the license?
>
> -hadriel
Hadriel,

If you read the documentation that comes with your, for example, AVCHD
camcorder, you'll see that the licensee (the hardware manufacturer) can
give to their users is a private, non-commericial license to the usage
of the encoded media produced by it.  Windows users, as well, are
granted a license via Microsoft to the usage of the decoder shipped with
the OS for the same limited usages.  Commercial usages beyond this would
seem to require an additional license (e.g., a paid performance where an
H.264 video is played on a Windows machine, perhaps?).

I don't know what to say about the other issues you've raised.  IANAL
and such. :)  Such questions may be directed to MPEG-LA.

-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org