Re: [rtcweb] H.261

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

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.

-Ekr