Re: [rtcweb] H.261

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:39 PM, cowwoc <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 27/11/2013 2:22 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:53 AM, cowwoc <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 27/11/2013 10:23 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 26, 2013, at 10:26 PM, cowwoc <[e-mail]> 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.

-Ekr