Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Let me re-iterate: This thread is closed.

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:32 PM, John Leslie <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Roman Shpount <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >...
> > In case of H.264, as far as our company is concerned, this implies that
> we
> > cannot license H.264 IPR. To work around this, we are planning to offer
> > H.264 in client software on the platforms where H.264 is provided by the
> > platform itself or via OpenH264. In both cases, we consider H.264
> licensing
> > will be something that will occur between the end user and the platform
> > provider, or, in case of OpenH264, between the end user and Cisco. If end
> > users decides to ignore the H.264 licensing terms, as they typically do,
> > this is between the end user and whoever provided them with the H.264
> > license. We will not license H.264 ourselves or provide any H.264
> licenses
> > from us to our customers. In anything that we license directly to our
> > customers or operate ourselves (which typically means professional
> > conferencing services), we are planning to support VP8 only and will not
> > claim WebRTC compliance. End points which implement H.264 only will not
> be
> > fully supported by the services we operate and would only be provided
> with
> > limited feature set that can be enabled based on peer-to-peer
> > communications or relay without the need for transcoding or
> > other H.264 related server functionality. This is why the currently
> offered
> > compromise works for us even though H.264 licensing policy is less then
> > ideal.
> > _____________
> > Roman Shpount
>
>    This explanation is definitely helpful. Thank you!
>
> --
> John Leslie <[e-mail]>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>