Re: [rtcweb] Cisco to open source its H.264 implementation and absorb MPEG-LA licensing fees

[Gili <[e-mail]>]

Mo,

The entire point of openh264 is to reduce IPR risk surrounding the use 
of H.264. That is not the point of open-source software in general. So 
for openh264 *specifically* it makes no sense to argue that it reduces 
IPR risk and at the same time allow contributions without reviewing them 
for IPR risk.

Gili

On 12/12/2013 9:32 PM, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote:
> I think you mean open source in general, not openh264 specifically. 
> The same can be done with VP8, Linux, or any widely used project. So 
> should we 10-finger every contributor and demand a license to every 
> thought they ever had or will have? Contributions to the openh264 
> project will certainly be thoroughly reviewed, not just by Cisco, but 
> hopefully a much larger community. But it is unreasonable to expect 
> reviewers to sniff out potential IPR trojans. It is also unreasonable 
> to demand review of the contributors rather than their contributions. 
> Open source projects would grind to a halt if they succumb to such FUD.
>
> Mo
>
>
> On 12/12/13, 5:25 PM, cowwoc <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> openh264 is a patent troll's wet dream.
>
> If I were a troll, I'd fork openh264, contribute some juicy code 
> sniplet that enhances the codec, and wait for Cisco to integrate it 
> into the official version. 3-6 months later, I'd sue everyone who uses it.
>
> Note that "everyone who uses it" refers to the thousands of companies 
> who are expected to compile the codec for themselves under the false 
> impression that they are safe because they have under 100k 
> deployments. Because Cisco makes no attempt to review the code for 
> IPR, and many companies are expected to use it, it makes it a very 
> attractive target for patent trolls. And good luck linking the 
> contributor back to the troll. There are plenty ways of contributing 
> code by proxy or anonymously to avoid detection.
>
> I bring this up to point out that you cannot really treat the software 
> license independently from IPR. The two go hand in hand. If you're 
> going to accept contributions from the public, you're going to have to 
> review it for IPR, and good luck going down that road...
>
> Gili
>
> On 12/12/2013 4:55 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Ron <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>     On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 03:04:31PM -0500, Roman Shpount wrote:
>>     > I think it would be beneficial to have a place on openh264 site
>>     where the
>>     > site owners (Cisco) would specifically ask any third party to
>>     disclose
>>     > their IPR claims against this implementation.
>>
>>     We so far can't even get the organisations who have active
>>     contributors
>>     in this WG and which hold H.264 patents to comply with their
>>     obligations
>>     for disclosure under the IETF requirements.[1]
>>
>>     Why would you expect a note on a Cisco website to work any better?
>>
>>
>> If I am getting sued by somebody for IPR violation due to use of 
>> Cisco binary and if there is a place where the person suing me could 
>> announce that this binary violates their IPR rights, but failed to do 
>> so, I can use it in my defense that they never tried to informed me 
>> and this is form of entrapment. IANAL, but from experience this helps.
>>
>> At least active WG contributors are not suing me yet.
>> _____________
>> Roman Shpount
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>