I knew I was doing the right thing, here is the proof, enjoy when you
read it, and have a good laugh.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Al Bochter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Jan 8, 2007 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Some queries on g729 license.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(C)UNT (F)UCK!
THIS IS OFF THE LIST
FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!!!!!
GET A JOB AND STOP LIVING OFF MY TAXES
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING
TRY AND STAY ON THE POINT.
YOU ARE NOW BLOCKED
I AM NOT GOING TO DEAL WITH JACKASSES LIKE YOU....
GOOD BYE
Best regards,
Al Bochter
Bochter Services
http://www.BochterServices.com/?t=Email
C F wrote:
When I first noticed that this thread has over 20 messages i was sure
it is interesting. When I read it I realized that I havn't noticed
that Al Bochter has posted to it.
Plain old stuff, just someone making sure to put a new twist on it.
On 1/8/07, Juan Jose Comellas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Intel IPP-based G.729 codec does work with AMD processors out of
the box,
both with the 32 bit and 64 bit versions.
On Mon January 8 2007 19:31, 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,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>>>>>> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:47:39 +0800
> >>>>>>> From: Leo Ann Boon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Some queries on g729 license.
> >>>>>>> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> >>>>>>> <[email protected]>
> >>>>>>> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> --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
--
Juan Jose Comellas
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
_______________________________________________
--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
_______________________________________________
--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
----------------------------------------------------
Inbound (clean). Database: 0701-6, 01/08/2007 - 1/8/2007 7:54:14 PM
_______________________________________________
--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
