Re: [rtcweb] H.261

[Florian Weimer <[e-mail]>]

* Eric Rescorla:

> Seriously? May I ask whether you have read the summary terms at:
> http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf
>
> They seem relatively clear on this point:
> "(a decoder, encoder, or product consisting of one decoder and one encoder
> = “unit”)"
>
> More importantly, do you seriously think anyone would license H.264 for
> a product if you had to pay $.10 every time the product started up.

It's unclear if a WebRTC application that is distributed on demand
would fall into that category if it is capable of using H.264.  The
MPEG LA licensing scheme was devised when this kind of use was not
common.  Also note the lack of reference to mobile devices.

It's also not clear what kind of license commercial use of H.264-based
WebRTC applications by end users would need.  They don't fall into
either of the top-level category.

(The fact that MPEG LA is apparently not structured in a way that
enables it to grant clearcut licenses to commercial users of
videoconferencing solutions doesn't mean they are exempted from
obtaining licenses.)