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

Basil Mohamed Gohar <> Thu, 14 March 2013 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56D8311E8153 for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.953
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2th+a5oZVznU for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C383B11E8129 for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 73736652968 for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:03:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:03:50 -0400
From: Basil Mohamed Gohar <>
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: "<>" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
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-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, 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 <>
>  wrote:
>> I talked about this with direct answers from the MPEG-LA here:
> 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

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