cisco OpenH264 解密，IETF内部邮件

Cisco and the openh264 project is certainly not trying tomislead anyone on the state of IPR on the openh264 project. When you go tohttp://www.openh264.org/ , the front pagediscusses the MPEG-LA licensing and make it clear how things are provided. Thehttp://www.openh264.org/faq.htmladds more information. The front page of the project also has a link to Cisco'spublic statements on the subject athttp://blogs.cisco.com/collaboration/open-source-h-264-removes-barriers-webrtc. That blog posting also make it clear that relation between the open sourceand MPEG-LA patent licensing.

 

The definition I use for Open Source is the one providedbyhttp://opensource.org/. Largely I usethis because I think they have the longest standing definition that has thewidest consensus but also they have the trade mark for the term.

 

Code can have patents that apply to it and still be OpenSource. VP8 and Opus are examples of this. Code can have patents that are notroyalty free that apply to it and still be Open Source. x264 is an example ofthis. Code can be BSD licensed and have patents that apply to it. openh264 isan example of that.

 

The MPEG-LA licenses allow people to to fork and buildand run things in small quantities. This allows developers to build productsand try things out without any trouble before they have to license things.Setting small quantities at a hundred thousand seems pretty generous to me. SoI disagree that people that fork and build this are automatically running afoulof the MPEG-LA. And people in the open source community might want to give somethought to how x264 and ffmeg projects work and how long they have been workingthis way.

 

I agree misleading people about if something is OpenSource or not is not cool in my book either. If anyone thinks the openh264.orgcode is not BSD licensed, send me facts on why and we can make sure that it is.

 

 

 

On Dec 11, 2013, at 5:05 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

 

> Cullen,

>

> Could you please respond to Engel Nyst's comment onthis thread? He wrote:

>

> "I am concerned about the fake appearancesCisco is giving. The code "appears" to be BSD-licensed, and githubrepository gives no indication to well intended people that in reality it'snot. Forking the repository and building a derivative release *already runsafoul* of MPEG-LA restrictions and exposes people to uncertainty and beingchased for fees, when it's a natural thing to do.

> Misleading people that an implementation is opensource when it's not is an unacceptable action in my book, under any shape orform; and I will keep short here as to other practical scenarios and issuesthat it brings. "

>

> What is Cisco's official position on this?

>

> Thank you,

> Gili

>

> On 11/12/2013 2:08 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy)wrote:

>> I would like to point out that Cisco haspublished the initial source

>> code for the H.264 codec. You can find it fromthe source code links

>> at http://www.openh264.org/

>>

>>

>> There still lots of work going on build, testsystem, other

>> architectures etc. If you want to read the codeand see what is

>> there, feel free to browse. If you are feelingbrave and like living

>> on the bleeding edge, go ahead compile it, andtry out. Be warned

>> that significant refactoring is happing as this getsmoved to support

>> the binary module. The binary module will not beup till early next

>> year. There is a bit of information about what is supported at

>> https://github.com/cisco/openh264/blob/master/README.mdThe

>> appropriate mailing list for discussing it is

>> openh264-dev@googlegroups.comand you can subscribe at

>> https://groups.google.com/d/forum/openh264-dev

>> 

>>

>> There is also a 5 minute video that helpsexplain the "open source

>> code" and "binary download" andother IPR issues as that seems to

>> cause confusion for folks. You can find it at

>> http://vimeo.com/cullenfluffyjennings/openh264-ipr

>>

>>

>> Cullen

>>

>>

>>

>> On Oct 30, 2013, at 6:28 AM, Jonathan Rosenberg(jdrosen)

>> <jdrosen@cisco.com>

>>  wrote:

>>

>>

>>> I’d like to make an announcement material tothe conversations around MTI video codecs in rtcweb.

>>> 

>>> Cisco is announcing today that we will takeour H.264 implementation, and open source it under BSD license terms.Development and maintenance will be overseen by a board from industry and theopen source community.  Furthermore, wewill provide a binary form suitable for inclusion in applications across anumber of different operating systems (Windows, MacOS, Linux x86, Linux ARM andAndroid ARM), and make this binary module available for download from theInternet. We will not pass on our MPEG-LA licensing costs for this module, andbased on the current licensing environment, this will effectively make H.264free for use on supported platforms.

>>> 

>>> We believe that this contribution to thecommunity can help address

>>> the concerns many have raised aroundselection of H.264 as MTI. I

>>> firmly believe that with H.264 we canachieve maximal

>>> interoperability and now, do it with opensource and for free (well, at least for others – its not free for Cisco J) Moreinformation on the open source project can be found athttp://www.openh264.org , which is sparsenow but more coming soon.

>>> 

>>> 

>>>_______________________________________________

>>> rtcweb mailing list

>>>

>>> rtcweb@ietf.org

>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

>> _______________________________________________

>> rtcweb mailing list

>>

>> rtcweb@ietf.org

>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

>

> _______________________________________________

> rtcweb mailing list

> rtcweb@ietf.org

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb