Re: [rtcweb] H.261

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

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.

Gili