On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 19:43 +0000, Chris Bagnall wrote: > > non-commercial is a misnomer, the patent may still apply for > > your usage, then again it may not. The libraries that are > > used are intels IPP which are free for non-commercial > > non-distribution purposes, if you want to distribute you have > > to pay intel money, but that gives you the core from which a > > patch file can be applied, that gives you an asterisk > > compatible module, which does the g729 and g723 codecs. > > On the site from which the OP got these modules from (I assume) there are > also gcc compiled modules which may help to alleviate some of the legal > concerns if the g729-specific patents aren't valid in your jurisdiction. > gcc isnt the issue per se, to get the core code you have to sign a non-distribute license with intel for the free stuff, its the same software just a different license to distribute (this is required to get the code from which the patch files act upon). As such there are two issues that need to be resolved, that of intel and that of the UN patent (UN runs the ITU which holds the patent, the ITU delegated that out for others to collect the money).
By intel releasing the codecs under their package for non-distribution it should be safe to assume (although it may not be safe) that intel has appropriate licenses to release that code under the terms of their license. I personally havent read intels license nor have I downloaded the IPP stuff to see if paying the $150 or whatever intel wants allows one to resell the codecs without paying anything more (ie did intel negotiate a blanket license as part of their IPP stuff or not). If intel did then the patent issue goes away and all you have to deal with is the intel fee, which I am not certain is $150, it may be more, I just remember someone talking about $150. I do know however that to get the IPP stuff you have to go through a 'click-wrap' license on intels page to download the stuff in the first place. That would be the first and easiest place to check to see if there are exemptions. Its normally not legal for a company to distribute stuff under a license when that license does not really apply, and potentially you can have a claim against that company if you are found in violation of the license merely by following the terms of the license. At least in the US. But to do that you have to have money to go after the presumably larger company, and it would most likely fall under a defective product law than anything else (although there are a bunch of case law items relating to faulty contracts). > IANAL and you should take independent legal advice if you feel appropriate. > Right, which is why I limited my statements to in the US the patent is valid and did not specify any countries in which its disputed whether or not it applies, but left the door open for that, as well as countries that dont care and wont enforce it even if it is legally valid. I also didnt comment on whether or not anyone can prove that you do have licenses, even if they know you use the codecs. Because to rely on that would be dubious at best, shut you down at worst. -- Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel UK +44 870 340 4605 Germany +49 801 777 555 3402 US +1 360 207 0479 or +1 516 687 5200 FreeWorldDialup: 635378 http://www.sacaug.org/ Sacramento Asterisk Users Group
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users