[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0266 (Codecs for Jingle Audio)

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Fri Jun 17 09:15:45 UTC 2011

On Fri Jun 17 03:44:13 2011, dmex wrote:
> Am I emailing play school? One of these things is not like the  
> others, one of these things does not belong.
Possibly from one.

> A codec that has patent issues and not finalized is something that  
> does not belong. End of story.
Firstly, Opus does not have patent issues. It has IPR claims, and  
there's a world of difference, not least because patents are a  
reality, whereas IPR claims are just that - claims. To remove it  
based on the claims implies that the XSF believes them valid, whereas  
- I hope - the XSF takes no position on the validity of the claims.

Imagine if this came to court, and some bright lawyer says "Well, the  
XSF removed it from their list, so obviously they think the claims  
are valid." - we'd be effectively supporting the validity by removing  
it at this point.

Secondly, the document makes it clear that Opus is not yet ready, but  
given it's intended as the successor to Speex, it'd be odd not to  
include it. It's certainly intended for exactly this kind of usage,  
and it's a piece of work that Jingle Audio implementers absolutely  
should be aware of.

> Do I really need to list reasons why this having this codec listed  
> on this document is a bad idea?

Some valid reasons would help.

Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

More information about the Standards mailing list