docs: OpenH264/MPEG-LA royalty finding sharpens C1 -- not resolved

Cisco's own OpenH264 FAQ (openh264.org/faq.html) is explicit: they cover
MPEG-LA/AVC patent-pool royalties only for their own prebuilt binary,
downloaded at install time. Anyone who compiles OpenH264 from source
and redistributes it inside their own binary takes on "all applicable
license fees" themselves -- Cisco "will not be liable for any licensing
fees incurred by other parties" in that case.

LiveKit's client-sdk-cpp links Google libwebrtc via the webrtc-sdk
org's fork, whose documented build args (rtc_use_h264=true,
ffmpeg_branding="Chrome") are the standard Chromium/WebRTC recipe --
which links a from-source, statically-compiled copy of OpenH264 (from
Google's mirror, not Cisco's runtime binary) into libwebrtc. That is
exactly the shape of case Cisco's FAQ says voids their coverage. Not
independently confirmed against LiveKit's actual pinned v1.10.1 build
(their release archives ship only compiled output, no build manifest)
-- this is webrtc-sdk/libwebrtc's documented default, not a verified
fact about this specific artifact.

This sharpens C1 into a concrete mechanism instead of a general open
question. It does not resolve C1 -- if anything it strengthens the case
for treating it as unresolved -- and none of this is a substitute for
an actual legal opinion. Recorded in third_party/livekit/README.md (the
full writeup), README.md's Status section, and the release-notes
template in publish-release.sh so it reaches whoever opens a draft
release next, not just this one.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01RL8abRmgFXkVASHkkqiJbE

.gitea/scripts/publish-release.sh

@@ -35,10 +35,16 @@ cat > "${NOTES_FILE}" <<EOF
 > **This build has not been cleared for redistribution.** The plugin
 > statically/dynamically pulls in Google WebRTC and OpenH264 code through the
 > LiveKit SDK, and whether that can be redistributed as a public download --
-> the "C1" attribution/patent question -- has not been resolved. See the
-> \`## Status\` section of \`README.md\` and \`third_party/livekit/README.md\`
-> for the specifics. By publishing this release, you are personally taking on
-> that open question -- if C1 hasn't been signed off on, don't publish it.
+> the "C1" attribution/patent question -- has not been resolved. Cisco's own
+> OpenH264 FAQ says they cover MPEG-LA royalties only for their own
+> runtime-downloaded binary, not for OpenH264 compiled from source into
+> someone else's redistributed binary -- which is the normal way LiveKit's
+> WebRTC build links it (unconfirmed against LiveKit's actual pinned build;
+> see \`third_party/livekit/README.md\`'s 2026-09-07 section for exactly
+> what is and isn't verified). See the \`## Status\` section of
+> \`README.md\` for the rest. By publishing this release, you are personally
+> taking on that open question -- if C1 hasn't been signed off on, don't
+> publish it.
 >
 > (The separate GPLv2/Apache-2.0 license-compatibility question, "C2", is
 > resolved: this project's own first-party code is Apache-2.0, matching the