Re: [rtcweb] H.261

Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> Thu, 05 December 2013 09:27 UTC

Return-Path: <randell-ietf@jesup.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 704B11ACC8A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 01:27:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 0dUGPbxCq-Yf for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 01:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from r2-chicago.webserversystems.com (r2-chicago.webserversystems.com [173.236.101.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3155C1AC7F0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 01:27:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pool-173-49-144-199.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([173.49.144.199]:2872 helo=[192.168.1.12]) by r2-chicago.webserversystems.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <randell-ietf@jesup.org>) id 1VoVDC-0008jN-UA for rtcweb@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 03:27:11 -0600
Message-ID: <52A04680.9070908@jesup.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 04:25:20 -0500
From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
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> <20131127220418.GR3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <529CE7D7.50601@librevideo.org>
In-Reply-To: <529CE7D7.50601@librevideo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - r2-chicago.webserversystems.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jesup.org
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: r2-chicago.webserversystems.com: authenticated_id: randell@jesup.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: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 09:27:17 -0000

On 12/2/2013 3:04 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote:
> On 11/27/2013 05:04 PM, Ron wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:42:25PM -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>> 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.
> Sorry, I missed this whole thread of discussion, but I think I know the
> answer to this, not that I think it matters a whole bunch.
>
> The camera manufacturer only has a transitive license to its customers
> for private, non-commercial usage, and that's exactly what it says in
> the discussion.
>
> This, by the way, is exactly and only the usages that will be allowed by
> the Cisco binary, unless MPEG-LA has changed their transitive licensing
> practices since I last investigated this.

IANAPL - In theory these restricted "personal" licenses can't be used 
for something like recording H.264 DVDs for sale, or for a video 
included in a for-profit ("commercial") blog post, can't be used in a 
DVD player to decode H.264, etc.  (This last part is something that 
MPEG-LA is very concerned with protecting, I believe, due to how the 
licenses are arranged).

Use of the Cisco module in a (commercial) conferencing server would 
(IMHO, IANAPL) likely stray onto the wrong side of the legal line (and 
also might not fall into the 100K units waiver if youy dealt with 
MPEG-LA directly).  Use in a corporation for video calls might 
theoretically stray over the line, but in a way that is done constantly 
by Windows for example (IIRC Windows has this "private, non-commercial" 
clause for H.264).

I think if you want to invoke the 100K units bit, you have to sign a 
deal with MPEG-LA, and count units, and agree to audits, etc.  But I 
haven't read their terms in a long time.

-- 
Randell Jesup -- rjesup a t mozilla d o t com