Re: [rtcweb] H.261

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 27 November 2013 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 5E3C21ADE86 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:43:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 5mFGOMMG9LMl for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:43:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-f181.google.com (mail-we0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 515BF1ADA5D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:43:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f181.google.com with SMTP id x55so7260270wes.40 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:43:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wnDp2jHKlD7V9RlIxZRGWwePYxCQo7wTPe2B4pPZHWY=; b=OVkWyCkk8V2a5wSsv6bxCFq2VgpVCPdxIUb93exX7gPqqZHlsjW1vti26mTAUPMYm5 euvB3eWxAg3vM/qqD9ScHO5i/Yh3aECFb3T/xaP2j77Ck3s1jIOPNdLGwc0Ic1VCGoxN wZCeYrxNfYHcdky6YHz7rzF2m3n8i5Tq1RwIYgImW1JEn/qC/2+lxrkVPiun5nje59qH EoYascoCJYJIqkjSPrHD25aLlPA4QsNOB4ofdwwckvvN9oG8HZdCuQSl1/p1swyzcMKI HifNgYDHNrUrIBSiQOIQkfXz3ECxGJvZmsGyhGibuLWM4elN/Z27+KopPQAhuDUTRSJh 9BBQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmDnE/TpOJpOI9BzbBwk5yHPBygmZX79/iTgKtg6d2tH4gTBOOEjS2ndFsG6+gquuJZwa4F
X-Received: by 10.180.211.71 with SMTP id na7mr24692412wic.5.1385584986077; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:43:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.152.137 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:42:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [74.95.2.168]
In-Reply-To: <5296589D.9070009@bbs.darktech.org>
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> <5296589D.9070009@bbs.darktech.org>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:42:25 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBO8uFiwBxr0cokRaWtb4YR97B-=mgqHd8NvgpcHiSiF-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 20:43:09 -0000

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:39 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
> On 27/11/2013 2:22 PM, Eric Rescorla 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.
>
>
> 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