Re: [rtcweb] H.261

cowwoc <> Wed, 27 November 2013 05:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38EAA1AE12D for <>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:27:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GfJDyOOWStNa for <>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:27:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2EFD1ABD2A for <>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:27:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id at1so11042169iec.33 for <>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:27:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=cWeZahV8RX8kQhKJB/HDJPBSCcAKXWnvpbgPrbyyzd8=; b=ZvcbwtpeeDvhVje0STtnV6zb74HXQ5BFZnGEkXU6h/aUQjWTkW6PQUHmyfUKtJ+tTe TJEIlzz+qIZjqJ6XsfEu2FFBoiVIqwX9FcrqxqKEQKyxXk5Tc0gRvucjHqydkmICtZhQ 7qzFCrHaaVOPyzXOLW+sUotK4ZghgAV/aUcJpPaSJkk2EXRgY8zaieIuMGQ2jqPlM5VH DiNKMvIg628ICVazdf/F/Xhnyco0fkAlNaJMp1OYe69Pq6hJNsNyRV7gB6+O2WBOmrcs WnMO/ObMAV1ky0oOsZGBFnR/SQVbjP1ZoLI3L1MEt1t3vAyQE3CJ7rhrui7bzXh17kdH m9FA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl3Nzi5c4LO6/eFgRAUfDCa7a/5SqXuoryX9ciQOtCrKjAM7SveDtXVjqRduUIr1UN1Xy5K
X-Received: by with SMTP id g11mr20340492igh.25.1385530041311; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:27:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id p14sm36216185igr.7.2013. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:27:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 00:26:34 -0500
From: cowwoc <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephan Wenger <>, "" <>
References: <> <20131122171020.GY3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000205080601000103020808"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.261
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 05:27:27 -0000

On 27/11/2013 12:07 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> If I recall correctly, someone asked for a more concrete definition of 
> a licensing "unit".
> StW: I do not recall the context, but MPEG-LA licenses (in addition to 
> content, which is not at issue here) a thing called "codec", which is 
> defined as one encoder, one decoder, or one encoder and one decoder. /StW

I don't think that answers the question. It was my understanding they 
were asking what constitutes one unit (out of the 100k free units we are 
allowed per year). For example, should we be counting the number of 
installs? Or number of concurrent users (e.g. what happens when a user 
installs the software on 5 machines but only runs one at a time?)? Or 
number of downloads? What happens if the same user downloads the app 100 
times? When users uninstall the app, do we get a unit back? The point 
is, we need a very concrete definition of how to count units.

> 2. On a related note, if my application is downloaded once but 
> installed 5 times by the same end-user, how many units is that?
> StW: I believe the correct answer would be 5.  However, there is a 
> provision that allows you to distribute "disabled" copies of a 
> "codec", and in that case the license fee only becomes due upon the 
> enabling of the copy, for example at the first use.  People use this 
> in conjunction with software activation mechanisms.  /StW

(Folded into the above question)

> 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.