[asterisk-users] Some queries on g729 license.
Matthew Rubenstein
email at mattruby.com
Mon Jan 8 15:35:31 MST 2007
Did you find any operations trouble installing/using the Digium codec
with Asterisk? I'd be surprised if Digium's were hard to use with
Asterisk, considering they wrote and support both. Also can their codec
be used to pre-encode data to files from a Linux command/line? Or just
the Asterisk CLI mentioned earlier in this thread?
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 00:31 +0200, 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
>
--
(C) Matthew Rubenstein
More information about the asterisk-users
mailing list