[asterisk-biz] Digium's response to posting of G.729 and G.723 source code

[James Jones]

Why did Digium request that article from digg be removed if it was 
linking to you list archive which has been corrected already?
Kevin P. Fleming wrote:

>On September 4, 2006 an anonymous poster sent a message to these mailing lists containing a link to a package of source code claiming that it was "Digium's G.729 and G.723 codecs".
>
>As far as we can tell, that statement was not accurate.  While the code posted appears to contain some of the same functionality as the G.729 modules we use, it is not the code used to produce our G.729 binary codec modules, and we do not offer a G.723 binary codec module at all.
>
>In addition, we are not certain of the exact origin of the code, and so we are concerned that the package of source code that was posted may contain code from third parties that is not licensed for redistribution, or not licensed under the terms that the posting suggested would apply to it. We have therefore removed the links to the package from our mailing list archives.  We recognize the importance of the integrity of these archives, but we do not wish to facilitate violation of anyone's copyrights or license agreements. 
>
>  
>