[Asterisk-Dev] asterisk 1.2 g729 compile errors

[Enzo Michelangeli]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Kennedy" <steve-asterisk at gbnet.net>
To: <asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 4:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Dev] asterisk 1.2 g729 compile errors

> On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 01:29:23PM -0600, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > The issue is that these 'alternative' G.729 codecs for Asterisk
> > involve the usage of code that is _not_ licensed for commercial use,
> > nor do the recipients of the code have the right to redistribute
> > it in any form at all (source or binary). In fact, the sources of
> > that code specifically restrict its use to academic and research
> > purposes (since it is a 'reference implementation' to be used for
> > comparison and interoperability testing with your own code).
> > If we allow discussion of this to continue on our lists, it could
> > be claimed by the licensors of this code that we are not taking
> > any steps to stop our user community from continuing to infringe
> > the license terms; yes, that is a stretch, but there is no reason
> > for us (or anyone else in the community) to be exposed to it.
>
> Then claim freedom of speech? I thought the US was big on that? Or even
> common carrier, again the US is big on that.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this. The First Amendment only
prevents the _Federal Government_ from passing laws abridging the freedom
of speech, etc. It does NOT suggest in any way that individual citizens of
corporate entities should provide resources for others to express their
opinions.

Of course, it may well be argued that the same First Amendment makes the
enactment of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 or, even worse,
the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004 ("In subsection (g),
"intentionally induces" means intentionally aids, abets, induces,
counsels, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a
reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all
relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to
the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its
commercial viability") blatantly incostitutional: but that's surely not
Digium's fault.

By the way, the  EU Copyright Directive of 2001 (already implemented by
the UK) ain't pretty either.

Enzo