[Asterisk-Users] Installing the none commercial intelg729codecs into Asterisk@Home 2.2?

[trixter aka Bret McDanel]

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20060122/9ab5bbc5/attachment.pgp