Re: Google and MPEG LA Announce Agreement Covering VP8 Video Format

On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 3:56 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> Does this mean we should revisit the requirement for a  supported video
>> format in HTML?
>>
>>
>> http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130307006192/en/Google-MPEG-LA-Announce-Agreement-Covering-VP8
>
>
> IANAL, but I don't think so. (1) this is an agreement with Google, not
> with W3C or the Web Community; (2) this does not mean other entities will
> not have to negotiate an independent license with the same IPR holders.
>
> On the other hand, if Google were to grant a sub-license to the W3C and
> the Web Community that meets the W3C PP, then that might be sufficient
> cause to re-open this issue.
>

Google has already done that:
http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/

There is more in the FAQ at:
http://www.webmproject.org/about/faq/#when-will-other-google-products-support-webm-and-vp8

In the past, this license has been questioned about patents that Google
doesn't own. This uncertainty has now been removed.

I support a move towards specifying VP8 as the baseline video codec for
HTML.

It satisfies all the needs for a baseline video codec that we discussed in
this WG at the time and that is capture in the spec of 2007 (yes, that's
how long ago we've been looking for a solution for this!):
http://web.archive.org/web/20071227152523/http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#video0

"It would be helpful for interoperability if all browsers could support the
same codecs. However, there are no known codecs that satisfy all the
current players: we need a codec that is known to not require per-unit or
per-distributor licensing, that is compatible with the open source
development model, that is of sufficient quality as to be usable, and that
is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies. This is an
ongoing issue and this section will be updated once more information is
available."

VP does:
* not require per-unit or per-distributor licensing (tick)
* is compatible with the open source development model (tick)
* is of sufficient quality as to be usable (tick)
* is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies (this is
the new tick)

Note that this doesn't answer the question of a baseline audio codec. Opus
is being used as the audio codec of choice for WebRTC, so it may be an
option to have WebM with VP8 and Opus as the baseline video delivery
format. I believe a spec for this is in the works. It's also worth another
discussion, if we would be happy to specify Vorbis as the baseline audio
codec.

Best Regards,
Silvia.
(speaking for myself)