[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > I saw a developer politely asking if there would be interesting on some > > alternative proprietary well-written SIP stack. > > how do You know "well-written" if closed source? > > FM: The bottom line is you don't know. But you don't know because it > hasn't > been tried and used yet, not because its closed source. When this project > is complete, people will be able to try and use it. If the implementation > is superior to the existing chan_sip, it will continue to be used. If it > is > not superior, it will not be used. That's the market doing its job. >
this is a very classical technical engineers' statement ;) so You could not have understood modern proprietary sw markets or markets at all. it is not quality that interests Your shareholders and that sells, in fact it is marketing success and/or using rude, half legal competition strategies. i include sw patents here. this will be the way it is as long people will buy ordinary water in expensive bottles in spite of the better proven water from my city's pipes. evidence: skype, micro$oft. > > > > > The answer is YES, there > > are people who want this kind of support specially if bundled with the > > patent encumbered codecs that will not make into callweaver any time > > soon. > > stay on topic pls. codecs are not in a session initiation protocol (SIP). > and we shouldn't give a shit on that U.S. lawyers trivial software patents > bullshit. > besides, the community has nearly always managed to give > reverse-engineered > and clean room designed replacements for codecs, since mp3 times. > > > > FM: This is an interesting topic. The Cornfed client does include a G.729 > codec and Cornfed is able to manage the payments of royalties to the > patent > holder. This is unfortunate but its just the way it is. If there are > customers that need G.729, this could provide an option for them. > no way (for me). i wont pay extra for trivial technology enhancements that mostly are based on other state of the art technologies and just reinventing the wheel, it has been proven too often. nor i wont support the technical incompetence of the EU or U.S. patent offices. no one should. their only job is to discriminate small companies which cant afford the crazy patent registration fees in favour of the big guys. nor we should allow lawyers taking over our sw industries. > > > > > > I hope you have not scared the man. :-) > > he must take it. this sounds like censorship. > > FM: With all due respect, I wish I had a dime for all the criticism I've > taken over time from open-source advocates. My skin is thick... well, You've asked for opinions here... some may differ from opinions of Your own hired personnel, sorry. or did I smash one of Your marketing actions here? i feel deeply sorry... > > BTW, this project is going to go forward. Based primarily on other > feedback > besides what I've heard from this list there appears to be a need and so > we > are going to go ahead with the development from where other feedback? err... i decide nothing in the CallWeaver project. maybe ask the maintainers directly. good luck. > > > > Thanks, > > FM > > y tom _______________________________________________ Callweaver-dev mailing list Callweaver-dev@callweaver.org http://lists.callweaver.org/mailman/listinfo/callweaver-dev
