On 5/8/15 09:24, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:
Alissa Cooper wrote:
As the liaison statement notes, there are many concurrent ongoing
efforts to develop video codecs, and the NETVC work would merely be one
additional such effort. We do not view the proposed NETVC work as
harmful for interoperability, but rather as helpful, considering the
fact that at present the licensing environment creates barriers to full
interoperability in many cases.
I think the important point is that there are *no* existing
standardization efforts with the simultaneous goals of best-in-class
performance *and* royalty-free licensing (however we choose to phrase
that).
I agree that this is the elephant in the room. The dismissal in the LS
of this aspect of the work uses sleight-of-hand to replace "royalty
free" with a phrase that means something very different. This either
misses the point of the NETVC effort, or feigns ignorance. In either
case, I believe a clarification on this specific point is appropriate.
Perhaps something like: "One key distinction of the NETVC work as
compared to other efforts to create high-quality codecs is a
differentiation between 'licensing terms that would enable broad use,'
which is a subjective distinction, and 'royalty-free licensing terms,'
which is a factual one. Conversely, a distinction from existing efforts
to create royalty-free codecs is the explicit goal of achieving quality
on par with modern, state-of-the-art codecs."
/a
_______________________________________________
video-codec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
