Re: [rtcweb] H.261

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <> Wed, 27 November 2013 03:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BDC81AE105 for <>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 19:30:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.502
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lKBXEh4Uc5S5 for <>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 19:30:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B87A1AE104 for <>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 19:30:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3671; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1385523056; x=1386732656; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Wpmzd1zHsu2zZWBWn70iEh91Z4ufwhJWdtuOzFlsu2A=; b=d6w8JRWkKIcF3qLNn5ZBVofZJC2tjgxRNI2nqlncd8p1Lfx7oiQAMmMm kqQixX/yBU3hCz54vzYRmq+w1M5zQjBX9t6gs0mauLJgLH6hdwVFXATCM IN551oWSngfONfQypNZeqRX0zalRtFJpUqSVcfaCb03cql3dxt2B9EZzl Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,779,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="2543654"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 27 Nov 2013 03:30:55 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAR3UtjU002612 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:30:55 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:30:55 -0600
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>
To: Basil Mohamed Gohar <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] H.261
Thread-Index: AQHO6yEUk7F2h8ervECMuCGHC18NQw==
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:30:55 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <20131122171020.GY3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.261
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:30:59 -0000

When I go to, the top headline is "Google Chrome dropping support for H.264, will support only open web codecs in the future" which seem, ah, a little out of date. I think the article is also a bit confused about the current state of MPEG LA license terms for 264 AVC pool. I do get they MPEG LA terms can be confusing at times but lots of people have figured it out. If people have questions about specific use case I'm glad to try and get them answers. 

On Nov 22, 2013, at 1:19 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar <> wrote:

> 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]
> 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 [] 
>> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 11:59 AM
>> To: Stefan Slivinski; Maik Merten;
>> 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 -!/miconda -
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
> -- 
> Libre Video
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list