similar to: Mutually assured minefields.

I hate following up to myself, but I thought a clarification of one point (specifically WRT RC5 which was mentioned in the original question) might be worthwhile...because what I should have said originally was that "To the best of my non-legally- admissible knowledge, however, none of the algorithms in the current *OpenSSH* implementation are currently encumbered by patents that would

Sunil-- Actually, you do not "see that openssl has some patent issues." You do see that OpenSSL implements many algorithms, some of which have been (at various times) been patented or encumbered in some countries. Without knowing what country you're in, none of us here can really give useful advice as to which software/algorithm patents could potentially apply. To the best of my

Does the reason Theora is relatively safe from patent infringement lawsuit have more to do with it actually not being encumbered, or is it because its use is decentralized? For example, FreeType is not patent-free, nor is Linux, yet they succeed because on the one hand, they are open source, and those who maintain them do not guarantee anything regarding patents, it is up to each individual user

Craig Dickson (crdic@yahoo.com) wrote : > Jack Moffitt wrote: > > > I agree that this might be the case. But what happens with the > > violation is by the author? :) > > > > Ie, in the case of PlusV releasing a patented codec under the GPL or in > > the case of LAME or FreeType's authors doing similar things. What > > state is that? > >

The list probably did not get this reply from D Richard Felker III. Having read quite a few patents I tend to agree with Richard: Software patents are very broad and even if I have not read the source code of Theora I would be surprised if it did not infringe several patents. However, I believe the argument that On2 has not been sued for infringing the MPEG-patents is a very strong argument.

> Take a look at: > > http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/effects/voip/index.en.html Well, outside of the Speex link, that page seems to be pretty old... > Is speex realy petant free or does patent free only means that > is is not patent by the speex authors? Who have checked that > speex doesn't violates patents others? I don't use IP here, > because most patents are

The following paper may be of interest to some. The author is generous about sharing a recently revised version. <A HREF="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=259648">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=259648</A> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Wayde Milas wrote: > The whole point is, I'm pretty sure that the above patents would never > stand up. There is a multitude of works both in use today, and in > written papers/code using arithmetic encoding. Not only that, I dont > think any prior art search was done from 1976 to 1990 when the patents > were awarded. There is alot of prior art. This is

Hi all ARCH modelling I have a problem now on how to proceed with further steps in my analysis. I did a linear OLS regression with my daily data of stock and index returns. There is now the problem of arch in my error terms. Thus I used the following r command: garch(resid_desn, order=c(0,2)) ## This ARCH(2) process seems to fit the best after trial and error. Consequently, I get there three

Thanks for the interest, Michael. I don't use Ogg, so I'm a little wary that standard FLAC would be left out of any Ogg Frog implementation. But I say that mostly out of ignorance. I have noticed that there seem to be two worlds for FLAC, inside Ogg and outside. It's important to be aware of the fact that many hardware devices support the FLAC format directly, without the

Hello, So here is the compression scheme that I don't know if is covered by patent. I use it on the wavelet DC parts.It outputs 1 byte (8 bits) words.There is 5 modes: - 1(MSB) | 7 bits to store value (0->127 range) - 01 | 6 bits to store val[n+1]-val[n] | val[n]-val[n-1] if each in the range [-4,4] - 001 | 5 bits to store val[n+2]-val[n+1] | val[n+1]-val[n] | val[n]-val[n-1] if each in

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Mai, Haohui <haohui.mai at gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/9/09 3:28 AM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Lei Shang<shang1982 at gmail.com>  wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>>     I just found -steens-aa and -ds-aa Alias Analysis listed in documents do >>> not exist in my llvm-2.3 code. Both from

Samba adopts GPLv3 for future releases. --------------------------------------- After internal consideration in the Samba Team we have decided to adopt the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 licences for all future releases of Samba. The GPLv3 is the updated version of the GPLv2 license under which Samba is currently distributed. It has been updated to improve compatibility with other licenses and to make it

Samba adopts GPLv3 for future releases. --------------------------------------- After internal consideration in the Samba Team we have decided to adopt the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 licences for all future releases of Samba. The GPLv3 is the updated version of the GPLv2 license under which Samba is currently distributed. It has been updated to improve compatibility with other licenses and to make it

This messages has been posted on SquirrelMail development mailing list. Maybe someone is interested in morg mailing list. Ciao, luigi -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [SM-DEVEL] An invitation to the "morg" (Message Organization) mailing list Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 17:08:03 +0300 To: squirrelmail-devel at lists.sourceforge.net Hello all, [Note: Yes, I'm not gone

Hi everybody, As the Asterisk community is getting larger and larger, I was wondering that the features which are provided in Asterisk and are programmed by the open source community under GPL, or GUIs like FreePBX which also come loaded with wonderful features and uses same Asterisk, are they anywhere violating any patent laws? Most of the features work the same way as Nortel, Avaya and other

Hello Jean-Marc Valin and all the Speex-dev team, Today I have a little question about patents and the AEC. I' am not a lawyer, but after a deep research in esp@cenet.com, I found that in August 2003, an AEC called "Double talk insensitive NLMS algorithm" (DNLMS) have been patented by Gary Q Jin, Gordon J Reesor, and others (US 6.608.897 B1). It uses a continuous adaptation step

Hi Drew, Sorry for the delay. FYI the patch that you attached is not your latest version. This thread that you replied to is an older thread; the latest version is on a different thread. The patch does not use the mapping family numbers used by libopus and libopusenc; could you update it to use family 2 and 3 rather than 254 and 253? The patch also appears to break encoding of surround files

Am Sonntag, den 18.05.2008, 20:39 -0400 schrieb me22: > On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Dominic Hamon <dom.hamon at gmail.com> wrote: > > It has also been mentioned that it is also true for LLVM itself, and it > > is. However, the amount of code in LLVM, and the specific nature of its > > usage and what it is for lends itself to better contribution tracking > >

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Dominic Hamon <dom.hamon at gmail.com> wrote: > It has also been mentioned that it is also true for LLVM itself, and it > is. However, the amount of code in LLVM, and the specific nature of its > usage and what it is for lends itself to better contribution tracking > immediately. Boost is a nebulous piece of software with a wide range of >