Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Thu, 11 December 2014 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BD8D1A87B1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:37:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gEX8j_FGlSQQ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:37:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f177.google.com (mail-vc0-f177.google.com [209.85.220.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EA241A6FC0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:37:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f177.google.com with SMTP id ij19so2720062vcb.8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:37:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=FiBhOs2XjbbyLZ2P5qhxuQvfgUxDftRuLjAVQq64+kU=; b=jZ721J7xKQGXjktj+6Xmqcfs5ZCvOfyGolGAbgLB5LlEZ4ruFnOh/vuhV75vJhpQvU +Ibd1O/1DmNw4olR4qiN7/s1eJXNWcXtFbPg1VMR8XRF+uenIzTYFaDA+ABg9ldpTCwU BTYeeLOQPQpfkUgS+bjsY2qFm5jItGTLcilvgn5Dtp+zxRF+OzGPcEk8GgcUKXhLVKRa dinOn5fxSnKX9EhpLdhgF+RZ4h/fdkBRh23hDzDUZYZmZD8I31jxjjosEY8cj1XU1WLU QZCAxD7aPMTPWlVQEr4uzaueoVWXAa2EF5bx4LGTKgWqa1wztCZj2JhJIHi5KBrgZDGJ j95g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnZp9uBP3rOgG7dyxwCODTinseiKzZpq+exczRuKrFik0jl/AkCtn4iR+LVc1HnUeXO0rwG
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.3.71 with SMTP id 7mr8184045vcm.56.1418323070836; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:37:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.139.9 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:37:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20141211183248.GE47023@verdi>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <54820E74.90201@mozilla.com> <54861AD6.8090603@reavy.org> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998AC05@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <63BC3D6D-03A1-41C2-B92D-C8DD57DC51DB@nostrum.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998ADF1@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <87d27r9o0a.fsf_-_@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <CABkgnnVYNjYAM=WhpuURHMUkU4mtT7E3a5yvqSG7+fGKXKOoNw@mail.gmail.com> <87iohisl7h.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <CAD5OKxs-L+1J7csFtTMThn+EF10kkAe_4-kpZ8jj59qmBV=CGQ@mail.gmail.com> <20141211183248.GE47023@verdi>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:37:50 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL02cgQzkE3j-s2fdho9GBgTb4-bgCHqoMR3L0RP5QkRoqqZSQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3cb1ad076830509f512ab
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/x8unjXibdztLloedHl3UxruH6dA
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 18:37:53 -0000

Let me re-iterate: This thread is closed.

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:32 PM, John Leslie <john@jlc.net> wrote:

> Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> 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 <john@jlc.net>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>