Re: [rtcweb] The MTI Codec Questions (what to ask and how to ask them)

[Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>]

2014-11-05 18:46 GMT+01:00 Daniel-Constantin Mierla <[e-mail]>:
> I don't see any reason to split on JavaScript API implementations and
> the rest.
>
> Moreover, looking back, the web browsers (and the web ecosystem itself)
> got to this level mainly due to open source implementations, via
> khtml/webkit and gecko/firefox (then servers and other tools), which at
> some point were small and not benefiting of any substantial resources.
> If any of "must implement" requirements adds limits (financial or not)
> to the usage in any kind of major open source licensing models, it is
> going to block a lot of innovation and disruption in the field.
>
> Better the freedom to negotiate anything and fail to find some common
> grounds in a session than building a walled garden for 'the chosen ones'
> -- hopefully the aim is not to build a new pstn-like ecosystem.


Very good point.

Chrome exists thanks to an open source project. It wouldn't be fair
that now Chrome gets something that other users of the same source
project are not allowed to use due to the licensing business model of
the "Industry" (Industry = those that do not really contribute to
*Web*RTC, but just expect WebRTC satisfies some requirements for their
legacy business).

Of course, if VP8 or H264 or both become a MTI codec for WebRTC
browsers, then any future effort to introduce a new open and 100%
rollalty-free video codec will be unfeasible.

Said that, then what? no MTI codec at all?



-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[e-mail]>