[video-codec] Charter update

[Christian Kurz <[e-mail]>]

Hello,
I have been attending this mailinglist for a few months and although i
neither am a developer nor any kind of expert, i would like to make a
suggestion i didn't see around here:
I think that it might be favourable to explicitly support p2p-applications
with the new codec. I strongly believe, that p2p-streaming will become more
important in the future.
In order to support p2p-streaming i think, that it might be wise to support
scaleable-video coding as described in this
paper<ftp://130.83.198.178/papers/APKS09.paper.pdf>by Osama Abboud,
Konstantin Pussep, Aleksandra Kovacevic and Ralf Steinmetz.

I am sorry if my suggestions are dumb or have been made before, but i
thought that this kind of decision should be made early in the development
phase.

Kind regards
Christian Kurz


2013/1/2 Basil Mohamed Gohar <[e-mail]>

> This is my first time reading through the proposed charter, and I think
> it's quite good as is (for whatever value that has coming from me).
>  However, and I know this was hinted at in its existing form, I would like
> to propose language that would explicitly include a goal of enabling
> support within free and open-source software implementations, as opposed to
> the more general language from BCP 79, which states it must "be widely
> implemented and easily distributed among application developers, service
> operators, and end users."  I believe there there could exist solutions
> that satisfy the condition quoted from BCP 79 and yet would not be
> implementable in free software applications.
>
> The beauty of this kind of a stipulation is that it does not rule out the
> usage of the produced codec in non-free applications, as qualifying as free
> software doesn't have to include exclusion from less-open software
> applications.
>
> I know that that is what is intended by using the language above as a
> guideline, and attempts to address known barriers to free software
> implementation, such as following IETF's IPR guidelines, are already being
> explicitly invoked.  But I think it is not a remote possibility that a
> solution can be found that could theoretically pose problems to
> implementations in free software projects and applications.  Having
> explicit language making that as a goal would protect from exactly such a
> scenario.  I believe it can be placed in the explanative text for the
> above-quoted line as part of the WG's understanding of the phrase, "...be
> widely implemented and easily distributed...".
>
> I propose something along the lines of what follows (changed as
> appropriate for charter-worthiness):
>
> - A successful codec must be permitted, whether legally or otherwise, to
> be implemented in free and open source software applications without
> compromising the licenses under which such applications are distributed.
>
> I know that that is rather clunky, but the meaning of what I was trying to
> get across is conveyed, hopefully.  At the very least, I hope further
> discussion on whether this is even needed to ensure the stated goals can
> occur.
>
> --
> Libre Video
> http://librevideo.org
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> video-codec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/video-codec<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec>
>