[Asterisk-Dev] writing a GPL G.729?

[Steve Underwood]

Mike M wrote:

>On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 12:23:18PM +0000, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>  
>
>>Steve is absolutely right on both issues:
>>- this thread is getting very off topic
>>- patented technologies can be distributed in source form - otherwise, 
>>    
>>
>
>That is fascinating.  I did some research. 
>
>http://www.intel.com/software/products/ipp/speech_code.htm
>http://www.readytechnology.co.uk/open/g729/
>http://www.sipro.com/
>
>I'd say the open source version of G.729 is not viable for most
>with a based entry fee of US$15K.  Best to find a licensed version
>at a fraction of the cost.
>
>Looking at the licensee list on Sipro's website tells me the G.729
>patent is accepted throughout most of the economic world. 
>  
>
There isn't *a* G.729 patent. There are lots of them. What Sipro's 
licencing offers you is a package deal where the patent holders have 
pooled their patents, and offer one stop shopping for a licence. I think 
Sipro list the people in the pool. It includes Sherbrrok University, 
France Telecom and others.

>http://www.sipro.com/licensees.php
>
>Guidance on fighting G.729 patents might be found here:
>http://www.donquixote.com/
>
>  
>
>>how could Intel distribute the G.729 and G.723.1 implementations that I 
>>have downloaded and patched for use with Asterisk?
>>    
>>
>
>Are you paying for use or are you non-commercial?
>  
>
>>Intel distributes both of these free, in source form, and under a 'free 
>>open source' license with the intention that the end user will negotiate 
>>their own patent license if the code gets compiled into binary form.
>>    
>>
>
>Can you provide a link to this guidance? 
>
>I found this in Intel's G.729 sample download EULA:
>
># ADDITIONAL LICENSES: Licensee's use or implementation of the Materials
># may require additional licenses, including but not limited to
># copyright and patent licenses from various entities including Intel.
># Should any such additional copyright, patent or other licenses be
># required, Intel expects that Licensee will and Licensee agrees to
># obtain any such licenses at Licensee's own expense. Licensee is solely
># responsible for obtaining any such licenses and the copyright licenses
># granted in herein are conditioned on Licensee obtaining such
># additional licenses.
>  
>
Intel have few rights over that code. It is the ITU reference code 
modified a bit to fit in with Intel's IPP library. There is nothing 
"free" or "open source" about it at all. Just like the original 
reference code, you can pass it around and experiment with it. It you 
want to use it you will need agreement of the authors. There is a list 
of them in the code somewhere. Its actually a longer list than the names 
in the patent pool.

If you get a Sipro licence it seems you are basically OK to use the 
copyrighted reference code. In practice it seems everyone does. G.729 
implementations generally show tell tale signs of have the same code base.

Regards,
Steve