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

[Jonathan Rosenberg <[e-mail]>]

Great questions Ted. My answers inline:

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dr. Rosenberg, it's always good to have your contributions.
>
> Thanks for today's announcement; I have a couple of questions.
>

> In March, Cullen announced that Cisco would open source an H.264
> implementation if the working group selected H.264 as the MTI.  I assume
> that today's announcement is a follow-on to that intention, removing the
> requirement for H.264 to be the MTI for this generous gift, since there is
> no similar requirement in your statement.  Is that correct?  This will
> remain available even in the case some other codec is selected as MTI?
>

Correct. This is not contingent on IETF selecting H.264 as MTI. We will
proceed with this if VP8 is chosen or if no decision is made next week.
Though obviously we and I hope this helps get a decision made in favor of
H.264.



>
> The web site and your announcement say H.264, without naming specific
> profiles.  Will the details of which will be included come when the source
> code is available?  Do you have a timeline for when the source code might
> become available?  Since the board will also name supported platforms, can
> you give a timeline for when they might be disclosed?
>

We'll start with constrained baseline profile. However part of the benefit
of open sourcing is that the community can help bring this to high profile.

As for timeline - we're not ready to say anything yet on that - but "soon".
We understand that if this doesnt show up for a long time it kind of
defeats the purpose, and that all eyes are on this to actually ship. Same
with supported platforms, though we hope the community can help with this
too.




>
> The current announcement describes this as a single donation, but my read
> is that it is really two, in that someone may *either* have the source
> code under BSD license term* or* they may have the downloadable module
> with Cisco paying the MPEG-LA license fees, but that these offers cannot be
> combined.  This is based on my reading of this question and answer:
>

Yes. There is a relationship in that the binary module is a compiled
version of that source code. So if the community makes changes to the
source code those would show up in our distribution. But in terms of
licenses you are correct. There will be a BSD license for the source code.
But if folks want to avoid the MPEG-LA license costs, they do that by
taking the compiled binary version from us, and most importantly it needs
to be distributed to the user's computer or device by us.


> *Q. Why is Cisco making both source and binary versions available?*
> A: The source code is available so that an implementation of H.264 is
> available for the community to use across any project, and to leverage the
> community to make the codec better for all. We will select licensing terms
> that allow for this code to be used in commercial products as well as open
> source projects. In order for Cisco to be responsible for the MPEG LA
> licensing royalties for the module, Cisco must provide the packaging and
> distribution of this code in a binary module format (think of it like a
> plug-in, but not using the same APIs as existing plugins), in addition to
> several other constraints. This gives the community the best of all worlds
> - a team can choose to use the source code, in which case the team is
> responsible for paying all applicable license fees, or the team can use the
> binary module distributed by Cisco, in which case Cisco will cover the MPEG
> LA licensing fees.
>
> Can you confirm that understanding?
>

Yes.


> If so, I have to note that I find the phrase "best of all worlds" a bit
> hyperbolic--a technology license that applied to all implementations would
> seem a bit better.  This may, of course, be the best of all worlds
> available to H.264.  I also note, by the way, that your announcement says
> BSD license, but this Q & A discuss this as if the licensing terms were
> still undefined.  Can you confirm that the license is BSD and update the
> FAQ?
>

Hmm thats a bug. Should be BSD.


>
> I also read it to say that Cisco will not indemnify users of either the
> source code or module against other patent holder's assertions of license,
> based on this question and answer:
>
> *Q: Is Cisco guaranteeing that it will pay other licensing fees for
> H.264, should additional patent holders assert claims in the future?
> *A: Cisco is providing no such guarantee. We are only covering the
> royalties that would apply to the binary module under MPEG LA's AVC/H.264
> patent pool.
>
> This seems quite clear to me, but I would appreciate your confirming it on
> the list.
>

Confirmed. This is why we're using words like "we won't pass on our MPEG-LA
licensing costs". Meaning - we cannot guarantee there won't be other future
unknown costs and we cannot make any guarantees that we'd absorb them. This
is legal 101 - you cannot indemnify against potentially unbounded costs.
You can form your own opinion on the risks of new patent holders showing up.


>
> Many thanks again for your contribution,
>
> regards,
>
> Ted Hardie
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:28 AM, Jonathan Rosenberg (jdrosen) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>  I’d like to make an announcement material to the conversations around
>> MTI video codecs in rtcweb.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Cisco is announcing today that we will take our H.264 implementation, and
>> open source it under BSD license terms. Development and maintenance will be
>> overseen by a board from industry and the open source community.
>> Furthermore, we will provide a binary form suitable for inclusion in
>> applications across a number of different operating systems (Windows,
>> MacOS, Linux x86, Linux ARM and Android ARM), and make this binary module
>> available for download from the Internet. We will not pass on our MPEG-LA
>> licensing costs for this module, and based on the current licensing
>> environment, this will effectively make H.264 free for use on supported
>> platforms. ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> We believe that this contribution to the community can help address the
>> concerns many have raised around selection of H.264 as MTI. I firmly
>> believe that with H.264 we can achieve maximal interoperability and now, do
>> it with open source and for free (well, at least for others – its not free
>> for Cisco J)****
>>
>> More information on the open source project can be found at
>> http://www.openh264.org, which is sparse now but more coming soon.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Thx,****
>>
>> Jonathan R.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> --****
>>
>> Jonathan Rosenberg, PhD****
>>
>> VP, CTO Collaboration****
>>
>> Cisco Systems****
>>
>> [e-mail]****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>


-- 
Jonathan Rosenberg, Ph.D.
[e-mail]
http://www.jdrosen.net