[sip-comm-dev] GSoC 2009 : G729 - Patent and Open Source implementation


#1

Because G729 includes patents we have to worry about licenses.

Yet, I don't have any answers from sipro about license restrictions for g729
implementation. So I try to figure it by myself :

User must pay sipro if they use an g729 implementation. But GPL (and LGPL)
prevent it

GPL v3
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free
patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to
make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and
propagate the contents of its contributor version.

GPL v2 :
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations
under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a
consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a
patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program
by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the
only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain
entirely from distribution of the Program.
Apache :
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
*3. Grant of Patent License*. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide,
non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in
this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell,
import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to
those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily
infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their
Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted.
If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a
Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory
patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this
License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is
filed.

I will look on BSD and other licenses. But I still wonder how FFMPEG wrote
an LGPL g729 implementation.


#2

Hey Romain

romain philibert wrote:

Because G729 includes patents we have to worry about licenses.

Yet, I don't have any answers from sipro about license restrictions for
g729 implementation. So I try to figure it by myself :

User must pay sipro if they use an g729 implementation. But GPL (and
LGPL) prevent it

I am of course not a lawyer but I don't think the above is true. The
licenses you mention here pertain to "the contents of [the] contributor
version" not to the algorithm itself (which is what the patent is for in
the case of g.729).

As for the choice of the license - there's no reason why this code
should have a different one from the rest of the project so it's going
to ship under LGPL. It would then be up to the users to make sure that
they respect the conditions of the patent protected algorithm as per
applicable law.

In other words I think we could settle this debate and move on to the
implementation.

Emil

···

GPL v3
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free
patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to
make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and
propagate the contents of its contributor version.

GPL v2 :
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your
obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then
as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example,
if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the
Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through
you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would
be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

Apache :
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
*3. Grant of Patent License*. Subject to the terms and conditions of
this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except
as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer
to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such
license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such
Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s)
alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which
such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation
against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a
lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within
the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then
any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work
shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.

I will look on BSD and other licenses. But I still wonder how FFMPEG
wrote an LGPL g729 implementation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net


#3

But it is not at all royalty-free to use.So it can NOT work with lgpl.

That's why Mobicents did not publishe their implementation under lgpl (or
gpl).

I was working to figure out why Mobicents didn't license their
implementation.

I need to know if we could use it or not.
I think we could.

···

2009/5/5 Emil Ivov <emcho@sip-communicator.org>

Hey Romain

romain philibert wrote:
> Because G729 includes patents we have to worry about licenses.
>
> Yet, I don't have any answers from sipro about license restrictions for
> g729 implementation. So I try to figure it by myself :
>
> User must pay sipro if they use an g729 implementation. But GPL (and
> LGPL) prevent it

I am of course not a lawyer but I don't think the above is true. The
licenses you mention here pertain to "the contents of [the] contributor
version" not to the algorithm itself (which is what the patent is for in
the case of g.729).

As for the choice of the license - there's no reason why this code
should have a different one from the rest of the project so it's going
to ship under LGPL. It would then be up to the users to make sure that
they respect the conditions of the patent protected algorithm as per
applicable law.

In other words I think we could settle this debate and move on to the
implementation.

Emil

>
> GPL v3
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
> Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free
> patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to
> make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and
> propagate the contents of its contributor version.
>
> GPL v2 :
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
> If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your
> obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then
> as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example,
> if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the
> Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through
> you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would
> be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
>
> Apache :
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
> *3. Grant of Patent License*. Subject to the terms and conditions of
> this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
> worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except
> as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer
> to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such
> license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such
> Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s)
> alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which
> such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation
> against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a
> lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within
> the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then
> any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work
> shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
>
> I will look on BSD and other licenses. But I still wonder how FFMPEG
> wrote an LGPL g729 implementation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net


#4

It's ok, Mobicents g729 implementation is under LGPL
http://groups.google.com/group/mobicents-public/browse_thread/thread/d9f596bfa7b39498?pli=1

···

2009/5/5 romain philibert <romain.philibert@gmail.com>

But it is not at all royalty-free to use.So it can NOT work with lgpl.

That's why Mobicents did not publishe their implementation under lgpl (or
gpl).

I was working to figure out why Mobicents didn't license their
implementation.

I need to know if we could use it or not.
I think we could.

2009/5/5 Emil Ivov <emcho@sip-communicator.org>

Hey Romain

romain philibert wrote:
> Because G729 includes patents we have to worry about licenses.
>
> Yet, I don't have any answers from sipro about license restrictions for
> g729 implementation. So I try to figure it by myself :
>
> User must pay sipro if they use an g729 implementation. But GPL (and
> LGPL) prevent it

I am of course not a lawyer but I don't think the above is true. The
licenses you mention here pertain to "the contents of [the] contributor
version" not to the algorithm itself (which is what the patent is for in
the case of g.729).

As for the choice of the license - there's no reason why this code
should have a different one from the rest of the project so it's going
to ship under LGPL. It would then be up to the users to make sure that
they respect the conditions of the patent protected algorithm as per
applicable law.

In other words I think we could settle this debate and move on to the
implementation.

Emil

>
> GPL v3
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
> Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free
> patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to
> make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and
> propagate the contents of its contributor version.
>
> GPL v2 :
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
> If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your
> obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then
> as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example,
> if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the
> Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through
> you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would
> be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
>
> Apache :
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
> *3. Grant of Patent License*. Subject to the terms and conditions of
> this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
> worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except
> as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer
> to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such
> license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such
> Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s)
> alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which
> such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation
> against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a
> lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within
> the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then
> any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work
> shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
>
> I will look on BSD and other licenses. But I still wonder how FFMPEG
> wrote an LGPL g729 implementation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net


#5

romain philibert wrote:

But it is not at all royalty-free to use.

Right, the codec isn't. I was talking about the code that implements it
and the license for distributing that code.

Again. I am not a lawyer so I might indeed be mistaken. If this turns
out to be the case and I am wrong on the above then we should probably
shut down this project.

Emil

···

So it can NOT work with lgpl.

That's why Mobicents did not publishe their implementation under lgpl
(or gpl).

I was working to figure out why Mobicents didn't license their
implementation.

I need to know if we could use it or not.
I think we could.

2009/5/5 Emil Ivov <emcho@sip-communicator.org
<mailto:emcho@sip-communicator.org>>

    Hey Romain

    romain philibert wrote:
    > Because G729 includes patents we have to worry about licenses.
    >
    > Yet, I don't have any answers from sipro about license
    restrictions for
    > g729 implementation. So I try to figure it by myself :
    >
    > User must pay sipro if they use an g729 implementation. But GPL (and
    > LGPL) prevent it

    I am of course not a lawyer but I don't think the above is true. The
    licenses you mention here pertain to "the contents of [the] contributor
    version" not to the algorithm itself (which is what the patent is for in
    the case of g.729).

    As for the choice of the license - there's no reason why this code
    should have a different one from the rest of the project so it's going
    to ship under LGPL. It would then be up to the users to make sure that
    they respect the conditions of the patent protected algorithm as per
    applicable law.

    In other words I think we could settle this debate and move on to the
    implementation.

    Emil

    >
    > GPL v3
    > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
    > Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free
    > patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to
    > make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and
    > propagate the contents of its contributor version.
    >
    > GPL v2 :
    > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
    > If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your
    > obligations under this License and any other pertinent
    obligations, then
    > as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For
    example,
    > if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution
    of the
    > Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through
    > you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License
    would
    > be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
    >
    > Apache :
    > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
    > *3. Grant of Patent License*. Subject to the terms and conditions of
    > this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
    > worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except
    > as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use,
    offer
    > to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such
    > license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such
    > Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s)
    > alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to
    which
    > such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation
    > against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a
    > lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within
    > the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then
    > any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work
    > shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
    >
    > I will look on BSD and other licenses. But I still wonder how FFMPEG
    > wrote an LGPL g729 implementation.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    To unsubscribe, e-mail:
    dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
    <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net>
    For additional commands, e-mail:
    dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
    <mailto:dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net