[RTW] [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00

[Greg Herlein]

Yes, as the guy who tried to get Speex into the specs years ago, these are
exactly the same arguments that I heard then.

Here's the most simple reason I can imagine to include a 'free' codec:  you
*preserve the option* for open source developers to innovate something new
and amazing by allowing *them* to make the choice around IPR.  The codec may
have patents that read onto it, or it may be clean.  Let the developer take
the risk - he or she is probably so small that no one would pursue them
anyway.

By excluding 'free' codecs from the specifications you force the open source
folks to write their own specs.  Which they then can try to get through the
WG.  But as a volunteer, it's all your own effort, no funds to go to IETF
meetings and make your case, no way to really move the momentum against the
mass of folks who are paid to participate in the IETF.  I've always thought
that the best way for the big boys to seed innovation and find thee
extraordinary Engineers would be for them to actively support the developers
out there innovating - including supporting the inclusion of the free codecs
in the specs.  And if their products supported a way for the end user to
load the free codecs themselves (thus placing the risk on the user and not
on the vendor) that would be ideal.  Just like browsers.

Of course, the reality is that in many cases the owners of the IP around the
non-free codecs have a vested interest in not seeing free codecs in the
market.  I understand that force, as well.  It's the IP game, is all.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Herlein   |   415-368-7546   |    SMS <4153687546 at tmomail.net%20>   |
Blog <http://blog.herlein.com/>   |   Twitter
Timeline<http://twitter.com/gherlein>
|   LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/gherlein>

Walking on water and developing software from a specification are easy if
both are frozen
*- Edward V Berard*



On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Henry Sinnreich
<henry.sinnreich at gmail.com>wrote:

>  It is interesting, almost funny (or sad depending on the perspective) how
> the reaction to a _God Forbid_ IP-free video codec is mirroring the
> opposition to the Internet audio codec. That opposition proved eventually
> futile and we have now a CODEC WG.
> I hope the AD’s will have now the same fortitude as was shown when the
> Internet audio codec WG was formed.
>
> I have taken the liberty to copy the CODEC WG and hope they can participate
> now in the video codec discussion as well.
> My apology for the double posting.
>
> Thanks, Henry
>
>
> On 12/21/10 3:38 PM, "Markus.Isomaki at nokia.com" <Markus.Isomaki at nokia.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter, all,
>
> About the video codec: Are there any arguments on why VP8 would not have
> IPR issues? It is available as an open source implementation, but that does
> not mean there are no IPR against it. My understanding is that the IPR
> situation wrt. VP8 is still unclear and thus risky. The other issue with VP8
> is, as far as I know, the lack of a clear spec out of which independent
> interoperable implementations can be created.
>
> So I don’t at least buy the argument that we should choose VP8 as mandatory
> to implement video codec because of IPR reasons.
>
> I’m working on a separate review on Harald’s drafts (thanks for putting
> them together) and will come back to the codec issue there in more detail,
> but just wanted to respond to Peter’s point here.
>
> Regards,
>                 Markus
>
>
> *From:* dispatch-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:dispatch-bounces at ietf.org<dispatch-bounces at ietf.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *ext Peter Musgrave
> *Sent:* 17 December, 2010 13:48
> *To:* Harald Alvestrand
> *Cc:* rtc-web at alvestrand.no; dispatch at ietf.org; Ted Hardie
> *Subject:* Re: [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for
> draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00
>
>
> I'd also like to echo Alan's thanks for these drafts.
>
>
>
> The protocol doc is very clear. [If you read only one dispatch draft this
> Christmas, make it this one. ;-)  ]
>
>
>
> One observation to the group. The mandatory to implement video CODEC is VP8
> (presumably since it does not have IPR issues - which some other choices
> would have).
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Peter Musgrave
>
>
>
>
>
> Nits
>
> Introduction
>
> s/veichle/vehicle/
>
>
>
> Section 2 Para "Within each.."
>
> s/implementaiton/implementation/
>
>
>
> Section 4 Para1
>
> "such as" (something missing here?)
>
>
>
> Section 5 Para2
>
> "There is no third mandatory to implement"
>
> ? Was there a mention of a third before. Not sure why this statement is
> there.
>
>
>
>
> On 2010-11-10, at 6:34 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>
>
> This is the overview document for the IETF-related RTC-WEB work.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/rtc-web/attachments/20101222/25df3617/attachment-0001.html>