Re: [rtcweb] H.261

Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org> Fri, 22 November 2013 20:19 UTC

Return-Path: <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
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 C36CA1AE27B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:19:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 ladq5Qt6KeAF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:19:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.zaytoon.hidayahonline.net (zaytoon.hidayahonline.net [173.193.202.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9941AE022 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:19:25 -0800 (PST)
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 4A60865985E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:19:18 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <528FBC43.5000409@librevideo.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:19:15 -0500
From: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
Organization: Libre Video
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
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> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E670F@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
In-Reply-To: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E670F@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 20:19:28 -0000

Stefan,

I am not trying to be condescending or put down your comments, but
actually, a lot of what you are bringing up now has been discussed on
this list earlier, and we still arrived where we're at.

The Cisco offer, if and when it actual reaches fruition, solves some but
not all problems with using H.264 as an MTI codec.  It definitely widens
the audience that can use H.264 in some cases, but there are definitely
use cases it does not cover, because H.264 *itself* is not licensed in a
way that is usable.  I'd like to point you to this posting [1] I made
years ago after a long interview process with a representative from
MPEG-LA, which reaches some interesting conclusions.

[1]
http://www.librevideo.org/blog/2010/06/14/mpeg-la-answers-some-questions-about-avch-264-licensing/

On 11/22/2013 03:11 PM, Stefan Slivinski wrote:
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 


-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org