On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Euee S. Jang <[email protected]> wrote: > The licensing issue has been one of the major driving forces in MPEG. And > this is why it is so hard to make one which is royally free. > Still, I wanted to mention that there are people/industry who would like to > make Type-1 (royalty-free) MPEG standards.
There are! And I absolutely do not want to dismiss them. There has been strong royalty-free sentiment at the MPEG from the outset (I believe starting with Leo Chiariglione himself). *They should come join us.* Despite a strong and consistent RF movement, MPEG continues to turn out increasingly encumbered formats even for efforts which ostensibly intended to deliver a minimum of a royalty-free baseline. That suggests there is a structural problem with MPEG itself (but that's a different discussion). So, I would encourage those people within MPEG who want to see a royalty free standard to come join us at the IETF. IETF has an established history of royalty free work (even if it's relatively new at codecs). The individuals of the IETF have already succeeded at RF many times. More often than not, it's the default assumption (after all, licensing seriously gums up ubiquitous adoption). And again, I would argue that's due to structural and incentive differences. > After all, those who are in MPEG Type-1 are not *they*, but may well be *we* > that should work together. Yes! Nor do I think anyone here would suggest that the MPEG does not turn out top notch work. However, I can't use any of it. And for that reason, I've chosen an environment most likely to maximize my personal success. It is not within the structure of the MPEG. I do not think that if my group and I chose to join an MPEG effort, we would overcome the structural biases against RF. Monty _______________________________________________ video-codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
