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

["Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)" <[e-mail]>]

+1

I suppose from a WebRTC platform support perspective, the gods at Apple could easily adopt WebRTC in Safari and deliver their own hardware-accelerated .264 implementation. Developers could surface that in a UIWebView, although I have not noodled what types of additional hooks may be needed.

Ultimately this falls into the Apple bucket.
 

On Oct 30, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Steve Sokol <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Jonathan and Fluffy,
> 
> In regards to Apple's restriction on the installation of binary modules the prevents iOS from being included in the list of supported platforms: what precludes Cisco from offering a binary static library built for iOS? If it's because the licensing terms you've struck with MPEG LA require you count downloads, could you offer an iOS version that simply does a one-time "phone-home" to cover the count requirement? The phone-home call could be anonymous and unique (hash of MAC or similar). Not necessarily ideal from a privacy perspective, but better than leaving a large, affluent and vocal part of the digital ecosystem out.
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Oct 30, 2013, at 9:55 AM, Matt Fredrickson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > That is only as long as the binary versions don't have any additions or changes for such things.  Nothing says that the binary modules cannot be built in this way.
> 
> The binary module will be build that way.
> 
> All the build scripts etc that Cisco uses will be part of the open source project so that anyone can build it them selves and check that their build matches the Cisco binary and check the code does not have backdoors to send all your video to the NSA.
> 
> 
> >
> > Matthew Fredrickson
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Ethan Hugg <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Lorenzo,
> >
> > You will be able to inspect the source yourself for nefarious things like tracking as the code will be freely available.
> >
> > -EH
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Lorenzo Miniero <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Il giorno Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:41:27 -0500
> > Adam Roach <[e-mail]> ha scritto:
> >
> > > On 10/30/13 10:20, Matt Fredrickson wrote:
> > > > Does this mean that system information (for systems that this is
> > > > installed on) may be tracked and sent back to the Cisco servers for
> > > > accurate license usage count?  (ethernet MAC address, or some other
> > > > system specific info) so that redownloads of modules on the same
> > > > system are not counted towards your license usage accounting?
> > >
> > > My understanding is that MPEG-LA has a per-organization royalty cap
> > > for H.264 (13 MUSD, if my memory serves), and that Cisco reaches that
> > > cap quite easily with their own products.
> > >
> > > /a
> >
> >
> > Which doesn't preclude the fact the module may do tracking anyway.
> >
> > Lorenzo
> >
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rtcweb mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> <digium_RGB_signature.gif>
> Steven Sokol
> Digium, Inc. · Director of Strategic Programs
> 445 Jan Davis Drive NW · Huntsville, AL 35806 · US
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb