Re: [rtcweb] H.261

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 27 November 2013 05:53 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 839CC1AE13F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:53:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.036
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
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 Rh8WT1br-Ykh for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:53:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484021AE134 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:53:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.191] (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rAR5rPEL015979 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 26 Nov 2013 23:53:26 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from 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>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <5295828A.4050506@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3132244A-FCB5-4C1F-86F1-E0897C47BCDA@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B350)
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 23:53:20 -0600
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 99.152.145.110 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
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 05:53:35 -0000

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. 

/a