Re: [rtcweb] H.261

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

On 27/11/2013 2:22 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:53 AM, cowwoc <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On 27/11/2013 10:23 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>>> On Nov 26, 2013, at 10:26 PM, cowwoc <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 3. I asked for the ability to license multiple units at a time so we
>>>>> deploy images and applications without a separate plugin/download process.
>>>>>
>>>>> StW: if this is related to MPEG-LA (and not to the Cisco download
>>>>> mechanism) the answer is simple.  You, as an MPEG-LA sublicensee, are
>>>>> responsible for the correct accounting of the number of codecs you “sell”
>>>>> (where “sell” includes things like free download etc.).  MPEG-LA has the
>>>>> right to audit you, and if they do  and you are found cheating, then there
>>>>> are provisions for penalties. /StW
>>>> Good point. I guess I am asking about Cisco's mechanism, since it is the
>>>> one that we will be bound by. I guess this would be much simpler if Cisco
>>>> hit the licensing upper limit, because then we wouldn't need to keep on
>>>> counting.
>>>>
>>>> Gili
>>> Cisco is going to pay the cap - not because we think counting is hard
>>> (even CDNs allow easy counting) - but because we believe that the Firefox
>>> usage alone will greatly exceed the cap.
>>
>> So why can't we bundle the H.264 codec again? If you are already hitting the
>> cap, I don't see a reason to force us to download the codec after-the-fact.
> Because Cisco distributing the copies is what makes them, not you,
> responsible for the license fee.

Either you misunderstood my question or I am misunderstanding your 
answer. I'm asking what prevents us from bundling Cisco's binary as part 
of our installer or image? Originally we were told we could not bundle 
their binary in-line because Cisco had to count how many license units 
they were giving out, but now that they say they will hit the cap what 
is the point of counting?

Gili