Re: [rtcweb] H.261

Ron <ron@debian.org> Wed, 27 November 2013 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <ron@debian.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 A7C1F1AD8EB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:04:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 bt3a9KjNFXW9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:04:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:6:4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03A891AD937 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:04:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppp14-2-50-7.lns21.adl2.internode.on.net (HELO audi.shelbyville.oz) ([14.2.50.7]) by ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 28 Nov 2013 08:34:22 +1030
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0266D4F8F3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:34:20 +1030 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at audi.shelbyville.oz
Received: from audi.shelbyville.oz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (audi.shelbyville.oz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id G-js-R6wxj9u for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:34:18 +1030 (CST)
Received: by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B957B4F902; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:34:18 +1030 (CST)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:34:18 +1030
From: Ron <ron@debian.org>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20131127220418.GR3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBO8uFiwBxr0cokRaWtb4YR97B-=mgqHd8NvgpcHiSiF-A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
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 22:04:24 -0000

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:42:25PM -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:39 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>; 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