Re: [rtcweb] H.261

[Basil Mohamed Gohar <[e-mail]>]

On 11/27/2013 05:04 PM, Ron wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:42:25PM -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:39 PM, cowwoc <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> What makes it a Cisco product is that it comes from Cisco, not that you
>> make a bunch of copies and send it to people.
> 
> So, if I buy a video camera with H.264 support from some local store,
> are you saying that it's the retailer responsible for purchasing the
> licence?  Or maybe it's the sweat-shop fabricator that's responsible
> for this?  Who did my camera "come from" in this case?
> 
> And are you by extension saying that I'm responsible for a 'unit'
> every time that Cisco binary is copied from disk storage to RAM?
> What if the disk it's on is in a NAS?
> 
> Juries in Texas are going to love this.
> 
>   Ron

Sorry, I missed this whole thread of discussion, but I think I know the
answer to this, not that I think it matters a whole bunch.

The camera manufacturer only has a transitive license to its customers
for private, non-commercial usage, and that's exactly what it says in
the discussion.

This, by the way, is exactly and only the usages that will be allowed by
the Cisco binary, unless MPEG-LA has changed their transitive licensing
practices since I last investigated this.

-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org