Re: [Linphone-developers] G729 support in mediastremer2

[Sergei Steshenko]

--- On Sun, 8/1/10, Petr Pisar <address@hidden> wrote:

> From: Petr Pisar <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [Linphone-developers] G729 support in mediastremer2
> To: address@hidden
> Date: Sunday, August 1, 2010, 10:59 AM
> On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 12:26:31AM
> -0700, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> > 
> > --- On Sat, 7/31/10, Mike Frysinger <address@hidden>
> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Mike Frysinger <address@hidden>
> > > Subject: Re: [Linphone-developers] G729 support
> in mediastremer2
> > > To: "Sergei Steshenko" <address@hidden>
> > > Cc: "kl" <address@hidden>,
> address@hidden
> > > Date: Saturday, July 31, 2010, 10:55 PM
> > > On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 00:47, Sergei
> > > Steshenko wrote:
> > > > Which violation and where ? Again, GPL
> mandates ways
> > > of _distribution_,
> > > > it imposes no limitation on how one can use
> a GPL
> > > program at home/his/her
> > > > organization.
> > > 
> > > and Gentoo distributes ISOs with nvidia drivers
> that get
> > > compiled on
> > > the end users system and loaded on the fly.  as
> for
> > > general packages,
> > > the point is that if Gentoo was a binary distro
> and
> > > compiled/distributed the packages, it'd be a
> clear
> > > violation.  but we
> > > distribute source & build instructions, so
> any user who
> > > wants to
> > > redistribute their build is violating.  thus the
> issue
> > > is delayed one
> > > "generation".
> > > -mike
> > > 
> > 
> > Which issue ?
> > 
> > For example, on my SUSE new ATI closed source drivers
> are compiled with
> > the kernel on my machine when I download the RPM.
> > 
> Do you talk about commercial SUSE or non-commercal
> OpenSUSE? Does the package
> come from official repository, or is it a third party
> repository hosted by
> someone somewhere outside of U.S.A. and west or central
> Europe? (I just ask to
> check the repository).
> 
> Nevertheless, fact somebody violates license does not
> excuse others to do so.
> 
> The issue is very simple: GPL (let's talk about version 2)
> states recipient
> must get software under GPL terms (including linked
> objects) and must be able
> to obtain source under the same terms.
> 
[snip]
> 
> -- Petr
> 

I am talking about open SUSE. I am talking about AMD/ATI repository.

There is no GPL violation. ABSOLUTELY.

For example, suppose a GPL program is linked _dynamically_ to a function
whose prototype is:

void some_function(double *in, double *out, int n);

and the source of the function is available under GPL or GPL-compatible
license.

GPL does _not_ mandate the function to do anything useful, in fact, it
does not even mandate the function (or the whole program) to work.

There can exist _infinite_ number of functions with such (or any other)
interface.

Now, at home or at work I decide to replace the some_function DLL with
another DLL. And I do _not_ distribute the new combination.

There is _no_ GPL violation.

So, the above 'some_function' there can be a function which happens to
be named as some function from G729 codec (and GPL does _not_ impose
limitations on function names), and instead of

"(double *in, double *out, int n);"

function signature there can be a function signature which happens to be
the one of the above G729 codec function.


Regards,
  Sergei.