Tilghman Lesher wrote: > On Sunday 07 June 2009 19:39:50 Lee Howard wrote: > >> Tilghman Lesher wrote: >> >>>> What's the use case for the Digium >>>> driver? Am I missing something by not using it? >>>> >>> While they accomplish the same goal, the commercial driver is based upon >>> a different codebase, >>> >> Ok. >> >> >>> provides support for patented fax protocols, >>> >> Really? V.34-fax (33,600 bps) is supported? I had understood differently. >> > > I would research the patents involved, but I am prohibited by employment > contract from exploring patents granted.
Due to said employment contract prohibitions you can't tell me whether or not Digium's Fax Application supports V.34-fax (33,600 bps)? > My understanding is that there are > certain aspects of fax that are still under patent, Yes. Specifically V.34. If my understanding is correct the relevant patents expire in a few years. > and those are provided > (along with indemnification) by the commercial driver. > Understood. But it was my understanding that V.34-fax was not supported by Digium's Fax Application. And if that's correct, then there are no patents for which indemnification is necessary. That's not to say that a commercial fax driver does not have its place with some customers. I only want to clear up any misrepresentations about possible patent infringements by spandsp to which you alluded. > I'm not suggesting that the commercial driver is more reliable, > only that it enjoys far more testing. > Again, regardless of your knowledge of how much testing goes into your employer's product, I question your ability to know with any degree of certainty as to how much testing has been involved with competing products. I certainly know that *I* have no clue with regards to spandsp other than the testing to which I've been witness. So I am curious to know how you are able to make such assertions. > That said, hours of use in production do not speak to the amount of testing > done. Scrutiny of production use exposure does not constitute testing? Well, I would argue that you cannot possibly test real-world conditions without actually placing the test system into the real-world with real-world use (thus, production). I cannot think of a better way to test software than to eventually put it into real-world production use and then have the developers monitor those systems closely. > IAXmodem is a completely different ball of wax, and I think you would agree > that if the builtin FAX support in spandsp provided excellent support, there > never would have been a reason for IAXmodem to be developed. I'm interested to know how you understand my intent in developing IAXmodem differs from what I recall. I developed IAXmodem because I needed to interface HylaFAX through an Asterisk PBX without purchasing additional hardware (other than the T1 cards that were already involved). Thanks, Lee. _______________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
