Re: [Linphone-developers] G729 support in mediastremer2

[Chris Vine]

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 17:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
kl <address@hidden> wrote:
> > the problem is with patents.  G729 has patents and
> > anyone wishing to
> > deploy with it need to pay licensing fees.  this
> > violates the GPL
> > redistribution aspects.
> 
> OK that's an issue but it's a separate issue, which there is nothing
> much to discuss, and it is already well understood. It is clearly a
> violation patent and someone need to pay licensing fees in order not
> to violate that.
> 
> But what my focus now is more on the GPL side, whether such
> combination will violate GPL or not.

Frankly, this discussion of what is or is not a derived work for the
purposes of the GPL is a waste of time, and for every 3 posters you
will probably get 4 views. If you run a business where keeping code
closed source is important, you need to to consult a lawyer.

None of the discussions have even taken the basic step of considering
what system of law applies to the copyright license in this case.
(There seems to be some vague assumption that it is some unnamed state
in the US, as if the US has taken over the world legal system.)  Given
linphone's provenance is I believe from France, you may well find
that French copyright law determines the effect of the GPL in this
case.  If any poster on this mailing list tells you he knows all the
copyright law in every jurisdiction in the whole world, don't believe
him.

The licensor is free to specify whatever legal system she wants as the
law applicable to the license, and also what courts are to have
jurisdiction over it (and the two need not be the same). I haven't
looked at the linphone tarball for the purpose, but I expect it
doesn't do that.  So you would need to determine these in accordance
with the principles of private international law.

Chris