Re: [Asterisk-Users] Open G.729A codec
I made a mistake of buying it so that I can have a low-bandwidth well-tested codec for use on an IAX2 link. Then I've caused Digium lots of unwanted trouble, because hair stood on the back of my neck after reading the licensing agreement and seeing the .so library. Let's hope it gets better in the future! Believe it or not, we worked hard to get that license agreement *improved*. I wish they took our concerns (and those of our customers) more seriously. Mark ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Open G.729A codec
Hi Matthew, That argument doesn't seem to work. I don't hear many complaints here about the cost of the VoiceAge codec. It's the clunkiness of the protection scheme people don't like. It's only the protection scheme that seems to be making people want to dump the VoiceAge code. Remember how Microsoft got to be so big? Most successful packages, like 123, had clunky copy protection that hurt the genuine customers far more than the pirates. Microsoft's applications business was getting nowhere at that time. Then Microsoft make a big announcement that they would not use such clunky protection schemes on Word or Excel, and their applications sales have never looked back. Inconveniencing the genuine customers is a proven loser. Perhaps the music industry will learn this soon. Regards, Steve Matthew Hardeman wrote: If I had to venture a guess, I would say that the protection scheme is in place in the hopes that everyone will use their implementation rather than reinvent the wheel. If this is indeed the case, their protection scheme is useful in helping to protect the patent license as well as their code. So far, it would seem, no one has bothered to reinvent the wheel, and as such we're stuck using their implementation. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Open G.729A codec
Eric Wieling wrote: On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 15:37, Mark Spencer wrote: Couldn't agree more. The G.729 codec is so unDigium-like... don't buy it is my recommendation. I don't think anybody buys G.729 just to have it. They buy it because they *have* to have it. And we sell it because they *have* to have it. I think eventually we'll be able to come up with a better (but not, for the near future, open) G.729 solution from us. What is the license for? The actual binary module or for the patented codec? If it's for the codec, then why can't you get a license from voiceage and then use your own code. As you said it's available from the ITU. I have no idea why VoiceAge want to protect the code as they do. The code isn't interesting to licence. Its the pool of patents you really need to licence, and that is bundled with the VoiceAge codec. I don't know if they indemnify their licencees with regard to other patent holders crawling out of the woodwork with fresh claims on G.729, but they do include a licence for the known patents. Believe VoiceAge have some kind of exclusive pool licencing rights. I'm not clear how this works, though. The ITU G.729 code is pretty much useless for real world use. It is very slow. It gets the right answers, but not by efficient means. All the voice codec reference code I have seen is like this. The people who develop these things *have* to write an efficient version, as standards bodies demand to know the approximate MIPS a good implementation will require. The implementors do not release this version as the reference model. I've been through this from the codec developer's side. The reference model may be 10 or more times slower than a commercial grade implementation. I've no idea what the ratio might be for G.729. If someone produced a good open implementation of G.729, then it might be interesting to see how much the patents could be licenced for. The usual problem with these pooling things is they offer you two deals: One is US$many per port for one port up. The other is US$little per port for larger volumes, but you need to pay a one off fee of US$100,000 (or something on that scale) up front. Regards, Steve ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Open G.729A codec
Steve Underwood wrote: The ITU G.729 code is pretty much useless for real world use. It is very slow. It gets the right answers, but not by efficient means. All the voice codec reference code I have seen is like this. The people who develop these things *have* to write an efficient version, as standards bodies demand to know the approximate MIPS a good implementation will require. The implementors do not release this version as the reference model. I've been through this from the codec developer's side. The reference model may be 10 or more times slower than a commercial grade implementation. I've no idea what the ratio might be for G.729. After writing this I got curious about how fast/slow the ITU reference code really is. I built and ran the G.729A reference code on a 2.4GHz Xeon machine, running RedHat 9. Its actually a dual Xeon, but the test is only able to use 1 CPU. G.729A is the fixed point reduced complexity version of G.729. Reduced complexity means it needs about half the MIPs of the more complex version. I compressed and decompressed a 3.5 minute file of 16 bit linear speech. It took 25 seconds to compress and about 5 seconds to decompress. That ratio seems about right for a codec of this type. So, using this code you can only do 7 bidirectional channels, using 100% of a 2.4GHz Xeon. Not exactly great, huh? Perhaps I should try the floating point version. That might perform somewhat better on an x86 machine, as any scaling and saturation steps need not be performed. For comparison, can anyone tell me how fast the VoiceAge codec runs? If is isn't a *lot* faster than that I would be rather surprised. It should be algorithmically more efficient, and I assume as a commercial product it should be using MMX, SSE and/or SSE2. Regards, Steve ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Open G.729A codec
Dan wrote: Hi Steve Steve Underwood wrote: 06.10 isn't that great a codec, though. I don't think it is used very much on the GSM networks these days. Most of the time they use the enhanced full rate (EFR) or half rate codecs. What do you mean by isn't a great codec? 06.10 should be something like G.729 quality, but its bit rate is considerably higher. In that sense it isn't a great codec. It was, but its getting old now. That does, however, have the advantage that the Rats of Patentopia didn't get all over it. Actually, its so old any patents would be at the expiration point now. (There were stirring about a patent from Philips some time ago, but it seems to have gone quiet.) There is any major advantage of the G.729 codec over GSM with Asterisk (except the full hardware support by main players)? Which is more scalable using the same hardware? G.729 has (unfortunately) become the lingua franca of VoIP. When the other guy has a G.729 box you tend to be compelled to follow suit. Time is passing GSM 06.10 by, and trying to work up enthusiam for adding it to new kit is not so easy. Scalable is a term that has been hijacked by marketing departments. Scaling the walls of the patent fortress surrounding most voice codecs is certainly a problem. GSM scales on the server, but puts more bits down the wire so the wire scales less well (however see below). Scalable is a complex issue. I have done some tests between ATA and 7960, both using G.729 (Asterisk pass-through ) and the quality is (in my opinion) the same as when using ATA(G.711)GSM---IAX---GSM7960(G.711). Sounds about right. The GSM path should be more tolerant of background noise, though. G.729 (and any other low bit rate codecs) degrade badly on almost anything but a single human voice. The codec bit rate isn't that important in RTP streams. The RTP overhead for a low latency stream is *huge*. The overall difference between 13.2kbps 06.10 and 8kbps G.729 is much less than those bit rates imply. If you want to avoid G.729 iLBC or Speex are worth a try. iLBC has some IETF backing, and has some features tailored to packet dropping paths like IP. Most codecs were designed with cellular in mind, and are optimised for different goals. Its bit rate is somewhat higher than G.729, but as I said. that isn't too much of an issue. Speex is interesting too, but if the IETF is working with iLBC it seems to have more chance of going mainstream. If I had to put my finger in the air and predict the future of VoIP codecs I would say GSM 06.10 free and simple, but not getting anyone excited. G.711 will be used a lot for internal calls if VoIP PBXs become the norm in large companies. That traffic might move to wideband, using G722.1 or Speex, but who knows. Fashion and available products will determine that more than engineering or customer need. G723.1 is going out to pasture. G.729 now has enough momentum to keep it mainstream iLBC stands a good chance, as its pretty much free to use and has IETF backing Speex is good, but it need something to kick it into the limelight. So G.711 are G.729 are needed by everyone if they want to communicate in free and flexible ways. G.723.1 can be ignored. Most boxes that support it seem to support G.729 as well these days, so why use G.723.1. You might as well implement Speex, iLBC and GSM06.10 on any server, as they cost nothing. Don't expect to find them in many routinely added to VoIP phones, unless they start to get more buzz around them. The phones won't add them unless they genuinely need to, as they consume valuable space on embedded platforms. If you want to champion them, go ahead. That's what they need. I seem to have too much time to waste today :-) Regards, Steve ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Open G.729A codec
This Windows binary is probably fairly easy to convert for someone with sufficient skills. It's a simple library, COFF format. It's probably sufficient to split it into .o files (using ar), then convert the .o files (using objcopy --target=elf32-i386, objcopy from cygwin has both elf32 and coff formats, so it's useful for that), and assemble the resulting elf32 .a library (again, using ar). What remains to be taken care of are mostly underscores in function/variable names. It's a little more complex than that. Remember the Windows one is single-channel only. It's not reentrant and thus totally useless for Asterisk unless you only need one channel. Otherwise, this process should work and one should be able to create a working Linux library (along with an asterisk codec). Which could not be distributed without violating GPL, nevermind Voicages licenses. See: http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MoneyGuzzlerInc Just remember that this is for non-commercial, personal usage only, as the license clearly states. Also, one must not reverse-engineer the code, which the license prohibits. A requirement which you cannot apply to GPL'd code (unless you were the copyright holder as Digium is and thus able to make such exceptions). Then I gave it some thought and couldn't really find a reason to do so much work on non-free code while there was speex almost ready to be used. Speex is really a great thing, but G.729 is the unfortunate standard for communicating with most (proprietary) SIP/H323 devices. If ATA 186's could talk SpeeX this wouldn't be a problem. Trying to get the Windows G.729 code ported to run with Asterisk is definitely barking up the wrong tree though, for both technical and legal reasons. I think it is rather sad (not to say ridiculous) for a company to guard a piece of code this small with such monstrous licensing schemes. Amen! Especially when essentially the code is entirely available via the ITU web site for a nominal fee! not speaking as Digium hereUnfortunately, companies like Voiceage/Sipro who purely are IP licensors apparently have nothing better to do than to try to come up with such rube-goldberg schemes for copy protection, even while demonstrating a remarkable lack of disregard for the actual quality of their implementation (especially in the early days). Couldn't agree more. The G.729 codec is so unDigium-like... don't buy it is my recommendation. I don't think anybody buys G.729 just to have it. They buy it because they *have* to have it. And we sell it because they *have* to have it. I think eventually we'll be able to come up with a better (but not, for the near future, open) G.729 solution from us. Mark ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] Open G.729A codec
Another approach would be... Just modify the mod_g729b.so such that the licensing constraints aren't so problematic... A little bird said it shouldn't be hard to do so... Matt Hardeman PaperSoft -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jan Rychter Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 12:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Open G.729A codec Steve == Steve Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Steve Kim C. Callis wrote: I was reading on www.vovida.org/applications/downloads/G729A/ (home of VOCAL) pages, and that there is a free license use for non-commercial for G.729A. Is that usable under Asterisk or strictly a Vovida offering? Steve This was a publicity stunt by VoiceAge, which Cisco/Vovida Steve seemed to get dragged into in their determination to see G.729 Steve become more widely used. All that ever really happened was a Steve Windows binary was made available for very restricted use. This Windows binary is probably fairly easy to convert for someone with sufficient skills. It's a simple library, COFF format. It's probably sufficient to split it into .o files (using ar), then convert the .o files (using objcopy --target=elf32-i386, objcopy from cygwin has both elf32 and coff formats, so it's useful for that), and assemble the resulting elf32 .a library (again, using ar). What remains to be taken care of are mostly underscores in function/variable names. Otherwise, this process should work and one should be able to create a working Linux library (along with an asterisk codec). Just remember that this is for non-commercial, personal usage only, as the license clearly states. Also, one must not reverse-engineer the code, which the license prohibits. I was actually thinking about both buying a license for it and doing the above, to avoid the licensing monstrosity present in the G.729A codec resold by Digium. Then I gave it some thought and couldn't really find a reason to do so much work on non-free code while there was speex almost ready to be used. I think it is rather sad (not to say ridiculous) for a company to guard a piece of code this small with such monstrous licensing schemes. Steve The G.729 implementation Digium supplies for Linux in from the Steve same source. The licencing is so clunky I bet Mark is wishing he Steve had left it alone! Couldn't agree more. The G.729 codec is so unDigium-like... don't buy it is my recommendation. --J. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Open G.729A codec
The codec bit rate isn't that important in RTP streams. The RTP overhead for a low latency stream is *huge*. The overall difference between 13.2kbps 06.10 and 8kbps G.729 is much less than those bit rates imply. If you want to avoid G.729 iLBC or Speex are worth a try. iLBC has some Right but with IAX2 that's not true, it's very important since IAX2 trunking overhead asymptotically approaches 4 bytes per channel. Mark ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Open G.729A codec
If I had to venture a guess, I would say that the protection scheme is in place in the hopes that everyone will use their implementation rather than reinvent the wheel. If this is indeed the case, their protection scheme is useful in helping to protect the patent license as well as their code. So far, it would seem, no one has bothered to reinvent the wheel, and as such we're stuck using their implementation. Matt Hardeman PaperSoft - Original Message - From: Steve Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 8:30 PM Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Open G.729A codec Eric Wieling wrote: On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 15:37, Mark Spencer wrote: Couldn't agree more. The G.729 codec is so unDigium-like... don't buy it is my recommendation. I don't think anybody buys G.729 just to have it. They buy it because they *have* to have it. And we sell it because they *have* to have it. I think eventually we'll be able to come up with a better (but not, for the near future, open) G.729 solution from us. What is the license for? The actual binary module or for the patented codec? If it's for the codec, then why can't you get a license from voiceage and then use your own code. As you said it's available from the ITU. I have no idea why VoiceAge want to protect the code as they do. The code isn't interesting to licence. Its the pool of patents you really need to licence, and that is bundled with the VoiceAge codec. I don't know if they indemnify their licencees with regard to other patent holders crawling out of the woodwork with fresh claims on G.729, but they do include a licence for the known patents. Believe VoiceAge have some kind of exclusive pool licencing rights. I'm not clear how this works, though. The ITU G.729 code is pretty much useless for real world use. It is very slow. It gets the right answers, but not by efficient means. All the voice codec reference code I have seen is like this. The people who develop these things *have* to write an efficient version, as standards bodies demand to know the approximate MIPS a good implementation will require. The implementors do not release this version as the reference model. I've been through this from the codec developer's side. The reference model may be 10 or more times slower than a commercial grade implementation. I've no idea what the ratio might be for G.729. If someone produced a good open implementation of G.729, then it might be interesting to see how much the patents could be licenced for. The usual problem with these pooling things is they offer you two deals: One is US$many per port for one port up. The other is US$little per port for larger volumes, but you need to pay a one off fee of US$100,000 (or something on that scale) up front. Regards, Steve ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Open G.729A codec
I completely see your point, and I agree with you that sales of the item would be much higher if they didn't have their silly scheme. However, it seems to me that they intend to jealously defend and over-enforce... Having said that, one could surmise that they are simply control freaks hoping no one will start selling a better implementation. For that matter, is it possible that they've used their patent positions to discourage others from trying to build another implementation? One must wonder why someone hasn't written and started distributing one? Matt Hardeman PaperSoft - Original Message - From: Steve Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 9:22 PM Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Open G.729A codec Hi Matthew, That argument doesn't seem to work. I don't hear many complaints here about the cost of the VoiceAge codec. It's the clunkiness of the protection scheme people don't like. It's only the protection scheme that seems to be making people want to dump the VoiceAge code. Remember how Microsoft got to be so big? Most successful packages, like 123, had clunky copy protection that hurt the genuine customers far more than the pirates. Microsoft's applications business was getting nowhere at that time. Then Microsoft make a big announcement that they would not use such clunky protection schemes on Word or Excel, and their applications sales have never looked back. Inconveniencing the genuine customers is a proven loser. Perhaps the music industry will learn this soon. Regards, Steve Matthew Hardeman wrote: If I had to venture a guess, I would say that the protection scheme is in place in the hopes that everyone will use their implementation rather than reinvent the wheel. If this is indeed the case, their protection scheme is useful in helping to protect the patent license as well as their code. So far, it would seem, no one has bothered to reinvent the wheel, and as such we're stuck using their implementation. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Open G.729A codec
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 15:37, Mark Spencer wrote: Couldn't agree more. The G.729 codec is so unDigium-like... don't buy it is my recommendation. I don't think anybody buys G.729 just to have it. They buy it because they *have* to have it. And we sell it because they *have* to have it. I think eventually we'll be able to come up with a better (but not, for the near future, open) G.729 solution from us. What is the license for? The actual binary module or for the patented codec? If it's for the codec, then why can't you get a license from voiceage and then use your own code. As you said it's available from the ITU. -- BTEL Consulting 850-484-4535 x2111 (Office) 504-595-3916 x2111 (Experimental) 877-552-0838 (Backup Phone) ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Open G.729A codec
Hi Dan, Dan wrote: - Original Message - From: Steve Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 9:49 AM Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Open G.729A codec Steve Underwood wrote: After writing this I got curious about how fast/slow the ITU reference code really is. I built and ran the G.729A reference code on a 2.4GHz Xeon machine, running RedHat 9. Its actually a dual Xeon, but the test is only able to use 1 CPU. G.729A is the fixed point reduced complexity version of G.729. Reduced complexity means it needs about half the MIPs of the more complex version. I compressed and decompressed a 3.5 minute file of 16 bit linear speech. It took 25 seconds to compress and about 5 seconds to decompress. That ratio seems about right for a codec of this type. So, using this code you can only do 7 bidirectional channels, using 100% of a 2.4GHz Xeon. Not exactly great, huh? Perhaps I should try the floating point version. That might perform somewhat better on an x86 machine, as any scaling and saturation steps need not be performed. For comparison, can anyone tell me how fast the VoiceAge codec runs? If is isn't a *lot* faster than that I would be rather surprised. It should be algorithmically more efficient, and I assume as a commercial product it should be using MMX, SSE and/or SSE2. There is any test made in the same conditions using Asterisk's GSM codec? I am interested in the scaling possibilities when using hardware IP phones with G.711 codec (like Cisco's 79x0, ATA, Budgetone, SNoM, etc.) and remote IAX connections plus all the local voice prompts and voicemail using GSM codec. The GSM 06.10 codec is *much* less complex than G.729. Mark said he had over 200 channels of GSM running on a server a long time ago, but I don't know what that machine was. 06.10 isn't that great a codec, though. I don't think it is used very much on the GSM networks these days. Most of the time they use the enhanced full rate (EFR) or half rate codecs. I just tried the ITU reference floating point code for G.729. Its considerably faster. It encoded a 3.5 minute speech file in less than 5s, and decompressed it in about 1s. I have no idea whether you are permitted to base an implementation on anything in the reference code. The code says its copyright by ATT, France Telecom, NTT, University of Sherbrooke, Conexant, Ericsson. All rights reserved. but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Once you have the code, it is mearly impossible to make a clean room implementation, and its hard to get a clean room implementation bit accurate unless you play with the reference code. I couldn't find a clear statement about what you are permitted to do. I assume as long as you cough up the patent licence fees they wouldn't care too much, but who knows. Regards, Steve ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Open G.729A codec
Hi Steve Steve Underwood wrote: 06.10 isn't that great a codec, though. I don't think it is used very much on the GSM networks these days. Most of the time they use the enhanced full rate (EFR) or half rate codecs. What do you mean by isn't a great codec? There is any major advantage of the G.729 codec over GSM with Asterisk (except the full hardware support by main players)? Which is more scalable using the same hardware? I have done some tests between ATA and 7960, both using G.729 (Asterisk pass-through ) and the quality is (in my opinion) the same as when using ATA(G.711)GSM---IAX---GSM7960(G.711). Thanks, Dan ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Open G.729A codec
Are the VoiceAge people generally unpleasant to work with and geniunely uncaring, or do they just fail to respond? Matt Hardeman PaperSoft - Original Message - From: Mark Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 10:16 PM Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Open G.729A codec I made a mistake of buying it so that I can have a low-bandwidth well-tested codec for use on an IAX2 link. Then I've caused Digium lots of unwanted trouble, because hair stood on the back of my neck after reading the licensing agreement and seeing the .so library. Let's hope it gets better in the future! Believe it or not, we worked hard to get that license agreement *improved*. I wish they took our concerns (and those of our customers) more seriously. Mark ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Open G.729A codec
Steve == Steve Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Steve Kim C. Callis wrote: I was reading on www.vovida.org/applications/downloads/G729A/ (home of VOCAL) pages, and that there is a free license use for non-commercial for G.729A. Is that usable under Asterisk or strictly a Vovida offering? Steve This was a publicity stunt by VoiceAge, which Cisco/Vovida Steve seemed to get dragged into in their determination to see G.729 Steve become more widely used. All that ever really happened was a Steve Windows binary was made available for very restricted use. This Windows binary is probably fairly easy to convert for someone with sufficient skills. It's a simple library, COFF format. It's probably sufficient to split it into .o files (using ar), then convert the .o files (using objcopy --target=elf32-i386, objcopy from cygwin has both elf32 and coff formats, so it's useful for that), and assemble the resulting elf32 .a library (again, using ar). What remains to be taken care of are mostly underscores in function/variable names. Otherwise, this process should work and one should be able to create a working Linux library (along with an asterisk codec). Just remember that this is for non-commercial, personal usage only, as the license clearly states. Also, one must not reverse-engineer the code, which the license prohibits. I was actually thinking about both buying a license for it and doing the above, to avoid the licensing monstrosity present in the G.729A codec resold by Digium. Then I gave it some thought and couldn't really find a reason to do so much work on non-free code while there was speex almost ready to be used. I think it is rather sad (not to say ridiculous) for a company to guard a piece of code this small with such monstrous licensing schemes. Steve The G.729 implementation Digium supplies for Linux in from the Steve same source. The licencing is so clunky I bet Mark is wishing he Steve had left it alone! Couldn't agree more. The G.729 codec is so unDigium-like... don't buy it is my recommendation. --J. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Open G.729A codec
I've been taking another approach to this codec/bandwidth problem. Instead of trying to get more codecs into Asterisk (which is always hard due to licencing) I've been trying to get vendors to implement GSM in their products. SNOM do GSM. D-Link gave me the good old, we have plans to support.. blah blah.. Any others I can start harrassing? I'm not giving up though. But we have to remember to attack this problem from all angles. J On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 22:43:18 -0500 Matthew Hardeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro* Are the VoiceAge people generally unpleasant to work with and geniunely uncaring, or do they just fail to respond? Matt Hardeman PaperSoft - Original Message - From: Mark Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 10:16 PM Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Open G.729A codec I made a mistake of buying it so that I can have a low-bandwidth well-tested codec for use on an IAX2 link. Then I've caused Digium lots of unwanted trouble, because hair stood on the back of my neck after reading the licensing agreement and seeing the .so library. Let's hope it gets better in the future! Believe it or not, we worked hard to get that license agreement *improved*. I wish they took our concerns (and those of our customers) more seriously. Mark ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users Regards, Jamie Carl Jazz Inc. Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web:www.jazz-inc.net Phone: +61-414-365-466 Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
