<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20080224091254.GV2770@xorcom.com" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I'm also curious as to why you assert that using G.729 in Asterisk
(/not/ ABE) at the same time as a T.38 implementation that relies on
SpanDSP since these are two completely separate plugins that are
installed and acquired separately.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
They are not installed separately. They are modules loaded into the same
memory space.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Absolutely they are installed separately. G.729 is a product you <i>purchase</i>
and the install onto your Asterisk server and load as a completely
separate module to app_fax. The fact that they are <i>written</i> by
the same company is irrelevant.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20080224091254.GV2770@xorcom.com" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">That's almost like asserting that
you can't run any commercial X application if you've installed my XYZ
web browser on the same machine. Just because they use a common
software base (X in this instance) /doesn't/ mean that you're violating
the GPL by running non commercial software on the same machine.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Those are two separate processes. Completely separate from one another.
This is a common misunderstanding of the GPL (or of the application of
copyrights laws to computer software).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Perhaps not the best example. Perhaps a better example is the <i>proprietary</i>
nvidia video driver used by a large number of people with NVidia
hardware - myself included. Granted, x.org is not released under the
GPL license, however assuming it was then by your logic you wouldn't be
able to use the nvidia driver.<br>
<br>
To my mind, this is a ridiculous situation and needlessly limiting. It
goes from the ridiculous IP extremes of companies such as Microsoft to
the other end of the scale. I am yet to find <i>any</i> situation
where any kind of extremism is a good thing. If the FSF starts trying
to enforce conditions such as these, they're going to look every bit as
bad as the companies such as Microsoft or Lexmark have in the past and
do themselves some significant damage.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>