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

Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org> Thu, 14 March 2013 18:06 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 D46C111E8129 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.276
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.276 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.323, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 T1hBILpk7wRh for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.zaytoon.hidayahonline.net (zaytoon.hidayahonline.net [173.193.202.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1575411E8194 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:06:53 -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 2E1D8656E42 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:06:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <514211B6.1010202@librevideo.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:06:46 -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
To: "<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 18:06:54 -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.
I forgot to point out in my last reply that the observation I made about
CC-licensed material might not be completely sound, from a legal
standpoint.  The confusion, however, is definitely present, but the
point is that that case may not be present.  Your license via CC
basically doesn't overlap with the need for licensing.  If I can find
the relevant text about that, I will try to share it and/or post again
on the blog.

-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org