[Asterisk-Dev] G.729 licensing, again..

[Steve Underwood]

Daniel Pocock wrote:

>
>
>> If you want to use the Intel code license it from Intel. Why is stealing
>> software okay, but if I took a laptop with software, a laptop is useless
>> without the software, but whatever. It is still stealing.
>>
>>  
>>
> That's not an appropriate comparison.  If you take a laptop, someone 
> else doesn't have a laptop anymore.  So they are the victim, they are 
> the one missing out.
>
> However, every time someone buys a license from Digium, the patent 
> holder gets $1.50 or something like that from Digium.  I can't see why 
> they would care which code you are running after you pay your money, 
> they are still getting their $1.50, so they are not the victim.  The 
> other $8.50 is a bonus for Digium, because they don't even have to 
> provide support if you use the Intel code, so they are not the victim 
> either.  So who is the victim, who is missing out and what are they 
> missing?
>
> Of course, if you don't pay anyone for the license, then that might be 
> in breach of your country's patent laws.
>
> However, having an open source implementation of G.729 can only be a 
> good thing for Asterisk, as it let's people do benchmarking and 
> compatibility testing on a large scale without having to pay for 
> licenses they are not using - such activities don't necessarily 
> require licensing until you start selling a product.
> It's also quite convenient for people who are happy to pay their money 
> but don't want the hassle of an awkward copy-protection system, such 
> as what Digium has implemented.

Stop trying to apply logic, and look at what the software licence says. 
A copy of G.729 from Digium provides no permission to use the patents in 
any other context, even if only the purchased number of copies are in 
use. This isn't Digium's rule. It is a rule set by the developers of the 
codec. It is also common industry practice. I fully agree it is also a 
pain in the neck.

Regards,
Steve