[Asterisk-Users] Digium and mailing lists

[joachim]

I think there are 2 different persons posting about the g729.

The one showing how to use the intel codec didn't do anything illegal i 
think ( although i have to admit that i didnt check it completely ), but 
the one posting the binaries clearly is.

The one using the codec without paying the 200 or 300$ to intel and the 
licencing fee to whoever owns the software patent clearly is, also in the 
countries where there is no such thing as software patents.
Since using the intel code for anything but educational purposes is the 
same as using pirated software.

Anyway, using a non licensed g729 is not just illegal, it also can get 
digium in financial trouble, not because they make less profit ( i dont 
think they can make a lot of profit on a 10$ license) but because they made 
a big investment just to allow you and other users to use g729 in a legal 
way, something you can't do without digium (unless you like bying some 
thousands of licenses). - there is such a thing as a minimal purchase of X 
licenses for g729.

If you think of using the codec because it might be faster than digiums, it 
is not, i did some benchmarks on both of them.

Now lets just close this thread please.


Joachim



At 15:01 26/09/2004, you wrote:
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Jay Milk" <jay at skimmilk.net>
>To: "'Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion'" 
><asterisk-users at lists.digium.com>
>Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 4:35 PM
>Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Digium and mailing lists
>
>
>>You're free to express your
>>discontent about G.729 licensing issues, but you're not allowed to
>>advertise a way to *steal* the software.  In other terms, you are
>>allowed to loudly and eloquently disagree with the price of goods, but
>>your disapproval does not give you the right to steal it -- or explain
>>to others how to steal and get away with it.
>
>I may agree with you from a moralistic point of view, but I'd like to 
>understand how instructions makes the author of the instructions liable 
>for any illegal activity committed by someone who used the instructions.
>
>Should Microsoft be liable because someone wrote a virus after reading a 
>Visual Studio Macro How-To?
>
>Should a screwdriver manufacturer be liable for my house being robbed 
>because their instructions tell you how much torque their screwdriver can 
>sustain and the robber got the idea to jimmy my window open?
>
>If I give you a knife and the instructions on how to slaughter livestock 
>in a Kosher manner then you go out and slaughter some humans, am I 
>responsible for their murder?
>
>Is Intel just as at fault in this situation in your opinion?
>
>If someone explains how to use development code and someone chooses to 
>commit an illegal act with it, why should the author be punished?
>
>As for the mode of transmission, was Microsoft responsible because the 
>9/11 terrorists communicated via hotmail?
>
>J.Christian Hoffmeyer
>_______________________________________________
>Asterisk-Users mailing list
>Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users