Re: [rtcweb] VP8 binary module (Was: Cisco to open source its H.264 implementation and absorb MPEG-LA licensing fees)

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Mon, 16 December 2013 10:45 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 B58BA1AE19C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 02:45:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] 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 hSgRRjtQdYMX for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 02:45:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:213:72ff:fe0b:80d8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 356CB1AE1B0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 02:45:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 416BE39E125 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:45:10 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tdro1288hmhA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:45:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.1.17] (unknown [188.113.88.47]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D558139E062 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:45:06 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <52AED9BC.4070708@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:45:16 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <186CE8D65BA3A741A81A543F936DD0D10A5803D8@xmb-rcd-x07.cisco.com> <A672E2AB-827D-46E8-9EB1-D7ED82B10B94@cisco.com> <20131211193239.GK3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <558F8D49-4024-4DF1-9A9E-AF422F1292C2@iii.ca> <20131212011550.GM3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <E8882BCE-4795-4CF5-B785-18C2141A5DE2@iii.ca> <CAD5OKxvy8xGuiR7oUbJJwTaxGfPJ=MHpd8Hp5MfpPLy8LmNaQg@mail.gmail.com> <D5A2C5EC-C65F-4E39-9A56-315B94C5FB1D@iii.ca> <52AA1642.30104@bbs.darktech.org> <CACKRbQdf=1aKfuyRiUb4PQoSbffxhcrPA3AJuMte48RH-LHn2A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACKRbQdf=1aKfuyRiUb4PQoSbffxhcrPA3AJuMte48RH-LHn2A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000807020100040309080808"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 binary module (Was: Cisco to open source its H.264 implementation and absorb MPEG-LA licensing fees)
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: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:45:14 -0000

On 12/12/2013 10:38 PM, Kaiduan Xie wrote:
> +1
>
> I have been wondering can Google distribute VP8 binary module with 
> similar approach as CISCO's H264 binary module support for a while.
>
> Can some one from Google confirm this?

As Justin said - we're certainly willing to help people adopt VP8 in any 
way that makes a difference, as long as the stuff we have to provide is 
in reasonable proportion to the difference it makes.

What we need to know can only be answered by the people who have IPR 
concerns about VP8:

 >>>> Will it make a difference to them? <<<<

If they say it makes a difference big enough to turn "won't support VP8" 
into "will support VP8", I think we'll do the maximum we can to be helpful.

If they say "it doesn't matter, we don't want to support VP8 anyway", 
it's unlikely that we'll make the investment and incur the maintenance 
cost for such a solution.

Anyone who isn't concerned by the present IPR situation can just 
download the sources now, compile, run, and distribute the VP8 encoder 
and decoder as much as they like. Technically, that's the simplest way 
and the way that's most flexible for those implementations that can use it.


>
> /Kaiduan
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:02 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org 
> <mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>> wrote:
>
>     On 12/12/2013 2:37 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>>     The Cisco messaging has been very clear about this. Obviously no
>>     one can know about patents they don't know about and Cisco is not
>>     distributing a binary module that they don't legally have the
>>     right to distribute. Think about someone else, who if the first
>>     person who gets sued if some new IRP comes up on H.264. It won't
>>     people Mozilla who are distributing Firefox with no H.264 code in
>>     it, it is more likely to be Cisco who is distributing the binary
>>     download that contains the H.264 code. Google taking a similar
>>     approach with a VP8 binary module might help alleviate some of
>>     the concerns about IPR on VP8.
>
>     Two questions about this:
>
>      1. To Google: When is it coming?
>      2. To VP8-detractors: would such a binary change your mind about
>         supporting VP8 as MTI?
>
>     Thanks,
>     GIli
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb