IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com> Mon, 04 November 2013 17:35 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@unify.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BB1611E82BA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 09:35:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.392
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.207, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ii8Pm6aBlmyq for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 09:35:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx12.unify.com (mx12.unify.com [62.134.46.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97E4611E831D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 09:32:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.234]) by mx12.unify.com (Server) with ESMTP id 8887723F048E; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:32:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.69]) by MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.234]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:32:32 +0100
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com>
To: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8
Thread-Index: AQHO2RUiKJ2ySAuLmEC6pK8t8AzdJpoVPHKw
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 17:32:30 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17C2D222@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <CAOqqYVEER_HprgauRawO+_gGdLdMY1MUY8jrMhhi3yVDL31bFg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPvvaaLpbWGZPBB1EMOPKQd_+t95bvG51NG4DnKhtEp1WSwRhg@mail.gmail.com> <BLU406-EAS3033A38C2A9CA480AFFD3B93F40@phx.gbl> <52772073.6090000@jesup.org>
In-Reply-To: <52772073.6090000@jesup.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 17:35:58 -0000

On: 03 November 2013 20:20 Randell Jesup Wrote:


> 
> IANAPL (I Am Not A Patent Lawyer) - but if you make an image that
> includes Cisco's plugin for imaging machines, that would be a violation
> of the rules - you would be the one distributing it to end-use
> systems.  While you're unlikely to get pinged on it, the company
> lawyers may not see it that way, and it might show up flagged in an
> audit, and IT guys don't like that.
> 

I also have a concern about this issue and made the same assumption however yesterday I was told by one of the Cisco experts that as long as it is the owner of the end devices (i.e. An enterprise) that is doing the distribution that would be within the rules. However IANAPL and those that are will need to examine the small print. 

Maybe this is something that Cisco could clarify in the FAQ's.

Andy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email