[asterisk-users] Some queries on g729 license.

[Zoa]

I did some tests a long time ago and the speed was roughly the same. ( I 
think digium's was slightly faster).
I think the IPP version also doesn't work on AMD out of the box.

It's just 10$ a channel, that's not even worth the hassle of trying 
something else.

Joachim

Al Bochter wrote:
> Matthew
>
> I agree. I only know what I have told by others so I do need this input
>
> I have been told that Digum G729 is a big pain the the butt to get 
> working with Asterisk
> and it is very hard on the CPU
>
> Keep in mind I have never used any Ver. of G 729
>
> So tell me what you think.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Al Bochter
> Bochter Services
> http://www.BochterServices.com/?t=Email
>
>
>
> Matthew Rubenstein wrote:
>
>>     All of which hassle and expense can be avoided by buying a 
>> license for
>> Digium's codec, which is tested to work well with Asterisk (and might
>> come with some support). And is pretty cheap per simul "call".
>>
>>     I wonder whether that "per call" means "per codec instance", which
>> could be multiple licenses on a single conference call, where multiple
>> (even if not all) parties are getting de/encoded simultaneously. And
>> whether there are other tools for editing (/mixing/transforming) g729
>> data, in realtime (streams) or not (files), and whether they require a
>> license. Ideally sox or equivalent would work on g729, maybe with a
>> codec plugin.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 13:23 -0500, Paul wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> First point to tackle in any case involving patent, copyright or
>>> trademark infringement is whether or not the infringing party would 
>>> have
>>> been qualified to buy any usage rights at all. In a case where you
>>> license the Intel source(read the terms, it's not really that "free"),
>>> you would be applying for a license under some plan that includes
>>> certain minimum payments. Even if you wrote new source from scratch you
>>> would be in the same boat. Last time I looked at the plans, I didn't 
>>> see
>>> anything with low minimums. So even if you wrote code from scratch and
>>> never used it on more than 6 channels, you might have done something
>>> that normally requires a large upfront payment. Use $10k as an example.
>>>
>>> In such a case owner of the patent might have an attorney initiate
>>> contact. If you are willing to communicate they might allow you to pay
>>> the minimum and be licensed. If you can't do that, they might offer a
>>> settlement where you stop using the codec and pay them some lesser 
>>> amount.
>>>
>>> If the patent holder can easily prove the violation you might as well
>>> try to deal with them and get things settled fast. If you sell or give
>>> away the codec it is easier for them to dig up proof. If you have
>>> unhappy employees that might be the way they hear about the 
>>> violation in
>>> the first place.
>>>
>>> Important consideration: Bankruptcy law generally excludes debts 
>>> created
>>> by things like malicious or criminal acts.
>>>
>>> Matthew Rubenstein wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>>     As far as I know, the g729 patent requires buying a license to 
>>>> operate
>>>> any implementation of it, whether Digium's, Intel's, or any other.
>>>> Digium is set up to collect royalties (perhaps at a favorable rate) as
>>>> part of their license from the patent holder. I don't know about Intel
>>>> or any other. Or what the mechanics are for enforcing the patent on
>>>> someone who operates a codec without a license.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 10:51 -0500, Al Bochter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>> What about the free open source G729
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Al Bochter
>>>>> Bochter Services
>>>>> http://www.BochterServices.com/?t=Email
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew Rubenstein wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>       
>>>>>>     I connect to a PSTN carrier over SIP which requires me to 
>>>>>> connect with
>>>>>> a g729 codec. I'm using them for just robocalling: Asterisk server
>>>>>> originates calls which play a prerecorded file. Can I pre-encode 
>>>>>> those
>>>>>> stored files in g729 so they don't need to be encoded for each 
>>>>>> call? If
>>>>>> so, do I need a g729 license for each call, or just a license for 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> preencoder? If the robocalls accept incoming DTMF, do I need g729
>>>>>> licenses for those calls?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 04:08 -0700,
>>>>>> asterisk-users-request at lists.digium.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:47:39 +0800
>>>>>>> From: Leo Ann Boon <leo at datvoiz.com>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Some queries on g729 license.
>>>>>>> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
>>>>>>>      <asterisk-users at lists.digium.com>
>>>>>>> Message-ID: <45A1DAFB.9070704 at datvoiz.com>
>>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Xue Liangliang wrote:
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>> Hi, all
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am a pabx vendor from Singapore. Recently we are going to
>>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> implement  
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>> a failover solution for our customers using heartbeat, the 
>>>>>>>> asterisk server can failover perfectly, however the g729 codec 
>>>>>>>> canot work, because it is binded the mac address, we have 
>>>>>>>> bought two set of licenses, can you provide us some workaround 
>>>>>>>> for this scenario?
>>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> It shouldn't be a problem if you're only doing IP takeover and 
>>>>>>> have bound the licenses to each server separately.  If you're 
>>>>>>> sharing the storage, then that could pose a problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Leo
>>>>>>> DatVoiz Singapore Pte Ltd  
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>           
> _______________________________________________
> --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users