[sldev] Re: Vote for voice protocol documentation

[Matthew Dowd]

OK, I'm a little confused, as I'm sure I saw a claim here that the codec was proprietary and closed.

The About box in the client claims the Codec is Polycom Siren 14 - which from a quick google appears to be an ITU recommendation and whilst it is protected by patents it is available under a royalty free license (http://www.polycom.com/usa/en/company/news/2005/20050412.html).

So with the RTP stack being open source, the SIP stack open source, the OpenAL libraries available freely (both binary and source), the codec available under a royalty free license - is there any obstacle (apart from doing the coding) to a third party stack which technically interoperates with the Vivox VOIP servers (whether Vivox would permit such a stack to connect is another question).

Matthew




----------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:39:37 -0700
> From: jhurliman at wsu.edu
> To: sldev at lists.secondlife.com
> Subject: Re: [sldev] Re: Vote for voice protocol documentation
> 
> Callum Lerwick wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 01:46 -0700, John Hurliman wrote:
> >   
> >> I think that smart open source installers or viewers are the way to 
> >> resolve this for now. Pick up the Kakadu library while they are at it 
> >> and get equivalent performance (or better) to the official viewer, along 
> >> with full voice support in a legitimate distribution. There are no usage 
> >> rights in question here, only distribution rights and this is a common 
> >> solution in Gentoo ebuilds. I don't have enough experience with Fedora, 
> >> but would it also work there Callum?
> >>     
> >
> > You do not seem to understand what "Free and Open Source" really means,
> > for that matter neither does Phillip, judging from his recent speech. He
> > seems to only understand that open source = win. Which is a good
> > start...
> >
> > As far as Fedora goes:
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-c23c2cd3782be842dc7ab40c35199c07cfbfe347
> >   
> 
> I never made a claim that I could define language semantics better then 
> yourself, but that is unfortunate about the Fedora packaging situation.
> 
> For individuals and companies as well as other Linux distributions the 
> solution would be viable and I know several sldev members have already 
> made headway with it. Personally I would prefer to see a viewer patch 
> that is able to find third party libraries better (instead of the smart 
> installer), has any progress like that been made or am I unwittingly 
> volunteering?
> _______________________________________________
> Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
> /index.html

_________________________________________________________________
Feel like a local wherever you go with BackOfMyHand.com
http://www.backofmyhand.com