Re: [rtcweb] H.261

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Wed, 27 November 2013 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEFBD1ADFD7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:49:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3DH4Ndw-iKyS for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:49:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 593E11ADFEC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:49:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id qd12so12888389ieb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:49:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4gylYucMl/xu+MFfjdlC5li6Jajqeg5nIwVY0Mn0xJc=; b=XHh5l8cgc7u4SV5fENk82DFUf2NOlYTf+Om0VU8reHqDNWz5okvP7+ugDaceLtfpfo lNhkwVv9fIR49mXsJQ/sIZSBCvZglPFqC42YezhrC66fbGYkYqOAOVNt01eOcnoHaCZW QbhzkJXT0rSyThcQnpETXgAyBEyXx+Hr4esHOiLXi1bsxkoXpdpq3gSlRcR+rCS2nKlw jLZCS96Ea99M8VpCdyIPy9MpJukIvnV9h2CtNBxERcw2v4BfBPatSaWCJF9z5hwxM+PL VSwP32M8brBIT8oGHOw4ieyxu+buwTBNtwMkKsxkOx7XotpS6WaqH+gMAKdVcSYcmk8i zLVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmBWMXRJ7mN+QODPxigeGar/T/TSflFZDzl94zymmU/xnn3DYpdIgCLagmbrhtONwFmOs8p
X-Received: by 10.50.73.164 with SMTP id m4mr23014857igv.7.1385585366708; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:49:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k6sm40945141igx.8.2013.11.27.12.49.24 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:49:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52965AA6.3010100@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:48:38 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
References: <CEB4350B.1E7B2%mzanaty@cisco.com> <20131122171020.GY3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66AF@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528F9DAD.3030300@googlemail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66DE@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FAAA8.8060807@googlemail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66FE@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FB79F.8090405@gmail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E670F@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FBC43.5000409@librevideo.org> <9783CBA7-FCF4-4241-8A04-F8DBBA409032@cisco.com> <529569C1.5010909@bbs.darktech.org> <CEBABA4F.AAF51%stewe@stewe.org> <5295828A.4050506@bbs.darktech.org> <C4FA6213-1216-482F-A682-6584DEA7C3D1@cisco.com> <52963FB9.7020002@bbs.darktech.org> <CABcZeBMiMebJ_80LxGv9awyPK=fNhq27pZKBXVnLAPswDJLHzA@mail.gmail.com> <5296589D.9070009@bbs.darktech.org> <CABcZeBO8uFiwBxr0cokRaWtb4YR97B-=mgqHd8NvgpcHiSiF-A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBO8uFiwBxr0cokRaWtb4YR97B-=mgqHd8NvgpcHiSiF-A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "Cullen Jennings \(fluffy\)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.261
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 20:49:29 -0000

On 27/11/2013 3:42 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:39 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>; wrote:
>> On 27/11/2013 2:22 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:53 AM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>; wrote:
>>>> On 27/11/2013 10:23 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 26, 2013, at 10:26 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>; 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?
> 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.
>
>> 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?
> I don't recall anyone saying that they had to count. What I recall them
> saying was that licensing restrictions required them to distribute the
> binary directly to end users.

Makes sense, though if that's the case, what the heck was I discussing 
with Cullen on Wednesday night? :) Remember, we were talking about 
licensing a block of units at a time. Cullen, can you please shed some 
light on this?

Thanks,
Gili