Re: [rtcweb] H.261

tim panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> Wed, 27 November 2013 19:50 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@phonefromhere.com>
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 2C5481ADF90 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:50:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 3QqVsNxozsNW for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:50:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp001.apm-internet.net (smtp001.apm-internet.net [85.119.248.220]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1679E1ADF9F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:50:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 54862 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2013 19:50:52 -0000
X-AV-Scan: clean
X-APM-Authkey: 83769 13086
Received: from unknown (HELO zimbra003.verygoodemail.com) (85.119.248.218) by smtp001.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 27 Nov 2013 19:50:52 -0000
Received: from zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE5CF18A01EF; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:50:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [192.168.157.132] (unknown [192.67.4.35]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D6A318A0577; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:50:52 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_361D8A56-20EB-4844-BCDB-FA8B7B15977B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: tim panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMiMebJ_80LxGv9awyPK=fNhq27pZKBXVnLAPswDJLHzA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:50:52 +0000
Message-Id: <C69BCC87-4487-4404-9F96-90704BFA5A68@phonefromhere.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>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
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 19:50:59 -0000

On 27 Nov 2013, at 19:22, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>; 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.
> 

If (and only if) you and your users meet some as-yet-to-be-defined criteria.
Unless Cisco is indemnifying all possible uses of the downloadable blob?

T.

> -Ekr
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb