DASH being an open standard, doesnt make it necessarily patent free ? http://dashif.org/about-dash-industry-forum/ On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:12 AM, "Thomas B. R?cker" < thomas.ruecker at tieto.com> wrote:> Hi, > > On 11/02/14 10:00, Yannick "Modah" Gouez wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > I was wondering if there were any plans for MPEG DASH support in icecast > ? > > I've been loosely following the libDASH development, making Icecast > align with that may be possible, though I have not evaluated this properly. > Anything MPEG is out of the question though as that entails patents, if > DASH itself is covered by patents and requires licensing, it's out. > > DASH is container and codec agnostic so in theory could support things > like Ogg or MKV/WebM. > > To sum up: Solid IPR evaluation necessary, then PoC by whomever sees > fit. In that order. > > > Cheers > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > Icecast-dev mailing list > Icecast-dev at xiph.org > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/icecast-dev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast-dev/attachments/20140211/2141cbc9/attachment.htm
Hi, On 11/02/14 10:34, Yannick "Modah" Gouez wrote:> DASH being an open standard, doesnt make it necessarily patent free ? > > http://dashif.org/about-dash-industry-forum/ >By analogy OOXML is called an open standard too. Still there are apparently significant IPR risks involved. I wrote solid IPR evaluation for a reason. Cheers Thomas> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:12 AM, "Thomas B. R?cker" > <thomas.ruecker at tieto.com <mailto:thomas.ruecker at tieto.com>> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 11/02/14 10:00, Yannick "Modah" Gouez wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > I was wondering if there were any plans for MPEG DASH support in > icecast ? > > I've been loosely following the libDASH development, making Icecast > align with that may be possible, though I have not evaluated this > properly. > Anything MPEG is out of the question though as that entails > patents, if > DASH itself is covered by patents and requires licensing, it's out. > > DASH is container and codec agnostic so in theory could support things > like Ogg or MKV/WebM. > > To sum up: Solid IPR evaluation necessary, then PoC by whomever sees > fit. In that order. > > > Cheers > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > Icecast-dev mailing list > Icecast-dev at xiph.org <mailto:Icecast-dev at xiph.org> > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/icecast-dev > >
I totally understand. I am using icecast for my live streaming project and I think DASH would be a great addition to icecast especially since I saw the work from the guys at streamroot.io . They managed to achieve P2P streaming using MPEG dash, dash.js and their own trackers. Is there anything I can do to help go forward with DASH ? I'm in no way an IPR expert but if anything ... Y. On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Thomas B. Ruecker <thomas at ruecker.fi>wrote:> Hi, > > On 11/02/14 10:34, Yannick "Modah" Gouez wrote: > > DASH being an open standard, doesnt make it necessarily patent free ? > > > > http://dashif.org/about-dash-industry-forum/ > > > > By analogy OOXML is called an open standard too. Still there are > apparently significant IPR risks involved. > > I wrote solid IPR evaluation for a reason. > > > Cheers > > Thomas > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:12 AM, "Thomas B. R?cker" > > <thomas.ruecker at tieto.com <mailto:thomas.ruecker at tieto.com>> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On 11/02/14 10:00, Yannick "Modah" Gouez wrote: > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > I was wondering if there were any plans for MPEG DASH support in > > icecast ? > > > > I've been loosely following the libDASH development, making Icecast > > align with that may be possible, though I have not evaluated this > > properly. > > Anything MPEG is out of the question though as that entails > > patents, if > > DASH itself is covered by patents and requires licensing, it's out. > > > > DASH is container and codec agnostic so in theory could support > things > > like Ogg or MKV/WebM. > > > > To sum up: Solid IPR evaluation necessary, then PoC by whomever sees > > fit. In that order. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > > Icecast-dev mailing list > > Icecast-dev at xiph.org <mailto:Icecast-dev at xiph.org> > > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/icecast-dev > > > > > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast-dev/attachments/20140211/a97b3740/attachment.htm
Hi Thomas,> I wrote solid IPR evaluation for a reason.It might be helpful to ask bitmovin as a starting point, they have released the reference code under LGPL: http://www.bitmovin.net/libdash.html The LGPL preamble says: "we insist that any patent license obtained for a version of the library must be consistent with the full freedom of use specified in this license." Personally, I don't see the point of adaptive streaming and the implied variation in quality. Either the quality you are streaming at is acceptable, or you are wasting bandwidth by streaming with too high a bitrate, perhaps due to an inefficient codec. I suppose the reasoning is that drops in quality are preferable to playback interruptions, but why tolerate either in a well-designed system? Adaptive streaming seems to say "we know the Internet is not really cable TV, but we are going to work around that by providing a cruddy picture for those times when available bandwidth does not align with our business model" :-) In the Icecast community, we might gain more by promoting Opus as a more efficient replacement for MP3 streaming, for example. Cheers! Daniel