[asterisk-users] Some queries on g729 license.

Mon Jan 8 17:52:18 MST 2007

When I first noticed that this thread has over 20 messages i was sure
it is interesting. When I read it I realized that I havn't noticed
that Al Bochter has posted to it.

Plain old stuff, just someone making sure to put a new twist on it.

On 1/8/07, Juan Jose Comellas <juanjo at comellas.com.ar> wrote:
> The Intel IPP-based G.729 codec does work with AMD processors out of the box,
> both with the 32 bit and 64 bit versions.
>
>
> On Mon January 8 2007 19:31, Zoa wrote:
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > --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
>
> --
> Juan Jose Comellas
> (juanjo at comellas.com.ar)
> _______________________________________________
> --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
>