Re: [rtcweb] H.261

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Wed, 27 November 2013 03:41 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.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 61DFF1AE0D8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 19:41:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nZcErh4Xek0r for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 19:41:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f177.google.com (mail-ie0-f177.google.com [209.85.223.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E8A31AE0AB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 19:41:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id tp5so10930345ieb.36 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 19:41:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=a6LX9qprV1eN1bfQSzCMxow+Uaas5NVeDumBu8BXUd0=; b=mtxiOT1wjyCWoEemrvN+jieePia5Blxdq/AhlUhCq++xjajA0lmNJ9013ULX3kemi1 fjJbSWCcJWKakvfVNzInDLvhore7zFHfeZ74PbDyIXUH8pusgZU0Xqgju0d9RgZi0piu WZszjkiHh74+pDGSIzrmGLPvKYDjZGgdsxlYLW5ferNgD4L+WIDTTVpW0rAEI7LS3crw rXbw6T+EznCK05INW4Pwt9sOpoaUSFXrOkkCS+t/5aw2UW7EMPLKgHORSBKwf7CJTfbg XZwy+1a9dvZNrLQsbPdZGH9ZDIGEV4nW4SXTIopJjam9Z+E2J2kmCd8/kB2R24sq2ZSt w0mg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQncu5EvumKrsIyJVrVqYH/hgbw74ShOWxJIMSmI8LqL+jM/QQbTl+VIl5MbdApW8JWHCKGg
X-Received: by 10.42.177.10 with SMTP id bg10mr23379970icb.18.1385523696865; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 19:41:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id j16sm35726696igf.6.2013.11.26.19.41.35 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Nov 2013 19:41:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <529569C1.5010909@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 22:40:49 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.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>
In-Reply-To: <9783CBA7-FCF4-4241-8A04-F8DBBA409032@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030006080300010604000503"
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 03:41:50 -0000

On 26/11/2013 10:30 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
> When I go to http://www.librevideo.org, the top headline is "Google Chrome dropping support for H.264, will support only open web codecs in the future" which seem, ah, a little out of date. I think the http://www.librevideo.org/blog/2010/06/14/mpeg-la-answers-some-questions-about-avch-264-licensing/ article is also a bit confused about the current state of MPEG LA license terms for 264 AVC pool. I do get they MPEG LA terms can be confusing at times but lots of people have figured it out. If people have questions about specific use case I'm glad to try and get them answers.

Sure:

 1. If I recall correctly, someone asked for a more concrete definition
    of a licensing "unit".
 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?
 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.

Thanks,
Gili