On 4/21/15 09:47, Ben Campbell wrote:
On 20 Apr 2015, at 20:35, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Hi Barry, all,
I’ve had a conversation with Jorge and Scott Bradner and have come up
with the edits below as a result. Would these address your concerns?
OLD
The WG will prefer algorithms or tools where there are verifiable
reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis over algorithms or
tools where there is RF uncertainty or known active IPR claims with
royalty liability potential. The codec specification will document why
it believes that each part is likely to be RF, which will help adoption
of the codec. This can include references to old prior art and/or patent
research information.
NEW
In keeping with BCP 79, the WG will prefer algorithms or tools where
there are verifiable reasons to believe they are available on an RF
basis. In developing the codec specification, the WG may consider
information concerning old prior art or the results of research
indicating royalty-free availability of particular techniques.
Delete this sentence since WGs generally accept input from external
parties all the time:
The WG will accept and consider in its decision process input received
from external parties concerning IPR risk associated with proposed
algorithms.
Everything else would remain the same. The above edits don’t change
the kinds of things WG may want to do to help produce a codec that
many parties can believe to be RF, but they stay closer to the
existing BCP 79 language that we usually rely on.
Alissa
I like Alissa's proposed change.
I do also.
/a
_______________________________________________
video-codec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
