[sldev] Re: Vote for voice protocol documentation

[John Hurliman]

Callum Lerwick wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 15:15 -0700, John Hurliman wrote:
>   
>> Also, can we move the voice discussion beyond bringing up Speex or other 
>> free codecs until someone can prove that these will actually work with 
>> Vivox servers?
>>     
>
> I don't see why this is a showstopper. If it doesn't work, they can make
> it work. Isn't the whole point of happy little standards like SIP that
> they're decoupled from the codec?
>
>   

The problem is that "they" is the partnership of Vivox and DiamondWare. 
It has nothing to do with Linden Labs (other then they happen to be one 
of the customers), and discussing what Vivox/DiamondWare should do on a 
Linden Lab mailing list is not going to accomplish anything. You would 
have to call up Vivox and speak to a representative there.

>> Linden Labs did not write the voice code, they don't own 
>> any of the patents, and they don't run any of the VoIP servers. Asking 
>> them to switch to brand X isn't going to accomplish anything.
>>     
>
> We're not demanding LL dump Vivox, if that's what you mean by this.
> We're asking for a workable open source solution, whatever that may
> take. That means either switching codecs, or an open patent license.
>   

LL is not in charge of what codec is used or what patented algorithms 
are used, unless they dump the solution entirely (not going to happen) 
or strongarm Vivox in to rewriting their software or granting an open 
license to their patents at your request (also probably not going to 
happen). All I mean is that talking about Speex on this mailing list in 
the context of a compatible voice solution in the SL client is falling 
on deaf ears. Unless you are talking about skipping over the Vivox 
solution entirely and writing your own P2P VoIP implementation, in which 
case I misunderstood.

John