Re: [rtcweb] H.261

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Wed, 27 November 2013 08:01 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 C5C121AE1AB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 00:01:34 -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 4pqPW79lKIPa for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 00:01:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f169.google.com (mail-ie0-f169.google.com [209.85.223.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C781AE254 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 00:01:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id e14so11578322iej.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 00:01:28 -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=sswzxQEBiVbexACPwPPViyGTEe/iGYlNtrJpNMTbOGk=; b=ecnH/SS5W+Ym8U559jPeE8FUodO1+KzTyi9dBdwKPBZF9XMvDXOkJedKQRZUSOzPIt iyxbVy+TQKJRWW7Qd6KLgVhU5aHQ2yKNeLfRBtRO1WweUp8vlpHW/p3lkgdqtp9w5EgN zUiPwaHoa4553QLFiNQ+lyIEJW5BZzXzyhaaIBGNU+4RTXFrjLf0CzvzRpdAU68cmGjj +VhFsteZX5Z8ZYa40vGWRnSBdtVJp4RqtN88Yk0a5Xw/MxjJYejhw8P+sUpcwQ2598Eu W0WH9eMDmnM75TngQj7zHLbpq3R1LUoFuHCgwqj1Ckj8RrChcar1C6BPa2DMKsjTgkwd jKWg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnQdSHRhI32Acnma5Bzsah/hy2qe4vZGjuRpld9BoFMrIkPhq+usNQctKoq80N3lWEjXVXq
X-Received: by 10.42.82.196 with SMTP id e4mr4344812icl.58.1385539288208; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 00:01:28 -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 hv5sm37497770igb.9.2013.11.27.00.01.26 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Nov 2013 00:01:27 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5295A6A8.4080100@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:00:40 -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: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.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> <3132244A-FCB5-4C1F-86F1-E0897C47BCDA@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <3132244A-FCB5-4C1F-86F1-E0897C47BCDA@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "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 08:01:39 -0000

On 27/11/2013 12:53 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2013, at 23:26, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>; wrote:
>
>> 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.
> If you use Cisco's binary, you don't have to count. Cisco takes care if that for you. As far as I understand, they are paying the cap, but that fact doesn't make any difference to you one way or another. The important thing is that Cisco is distributing the codec, and Cisco is bearing the costs for making sure that anything it distributes is properly licensed.
>
Hi Adam,

We still need to count. If that weren't the case, Cisco would let us 
bundle their binary as part of our installers. The reason they force us 
to download the binary after-the-fact is so that they can keep track of 
the count.

Gili