Speex dev - Dec 2007 - Legal Question

On 12/3/07, Stefan Reuther <streu@gmx.de> wrote:
> John Miles wrote:
> > What's wrong with a plain old .bat file, or even an NMAKE .mak
file?
> > Ship two files, debug.bat and release.bat, and call it good.
> >
> > It is best to leave project-file creation up to individual users,
> > in my opinion.
>
> I second that. When I played around with Speex a while ago, I just
> dumped the Speex source files into a .dsp file (Visual Studio Project),
> and built that. For another environment, I made a 25 line Makefile
> (essentially, a SOURCE = ..... line plus the auto-dependency example
> code from the GNU make manual).
>
> The only "problem" is to find out what files are needed for the
library
> and which are superfluous (i.e. test/demo programs with their own
> main()). A minimal Makefile would help to document that, and enable
> people create projects, with minimum effort, for all sorts of
> environments nobody ever heard of.
You sure missed with this approach that you have to define _USE_SSE
to have SSE optimized build, that you could use USE_ALLOCA if you
do not use _USE_SSE, etc, etc. You have to dig around for some amount
of time to find all such things.

Just to indicate my position:
1) MinGW build support is good. It should be there.
2) I _will_ maintain VS6, VS2003 and VS2005 projects for Speex as long
as we use Speex in sipXmediaLib. It would be great to have them checked
in to Speex repo, if no - we will keep them in our. Reasons - handiness,
ability to link statically, support for WinCE.
3) Project files make compilation much easier for people how want Speex
to "just work" and want to use svn version (e.g. because of bugfixes).
Also they reduce number of questions in mailing list from the legion of
VS users.
4) I have not so much time to flame on this and definitely will not change
my position easily.
5) It's up to Jean-Marc to make final decisions.

-- 
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.

SIPez LLC.
SIP VoIP, IM and Presence Consulting
http://www.SIPez.com
tel: +1 (617) 273-4000

> Just to indicate my position:
> 1) MinGW build support is good. It should be there.
Will merge.
> 2) I _will_ maintain VS6, VS2003 and VS2005 projects for Speex as long
> as we use Speex in sipXmediaLib. It would be great to have them checked
> in to Speex repo, if no - we will keep them in our. Reasons - handiness,
> ability to link statically, support for WinCE.
OK, I'll keep them for as long as you keep maintaining them. That being
said, some simplifications (e.g. less directories) would be nice (for
after beta3).
> 3) Project files make compilation much easier for people how want Speex
> to "just work" and want to use svn version (e.g. because of
bugfixes).
> Also they reduce number of questions in mailing list from the legion of
> VS users.
> 4) I have not so much time to flame on this and definitely will not change
> my position easily.
> 5) It's up to Jean-Marc to make final decisions.
Done.

	Jean-Marc

On 12/6/07, Jean-Marc Valin <jean-marc.valin@usherbrooke.ca>
wrote:
> > 2) I _will_ maintain VS6, VS2003 and VS2005 projects for Speex as long
> > as we use Speex in sipXmediaLib. It would be great to have them
checked
> > in to Speex repo, if no - we will keep them in our. Reasons -
handiness,
> > ability to link statically, support for WinCE.
>
> OK, I'll keep them for as long as you keep maintaining them. That being
> said, some simplifications (e.g. less directories) would be nice (for
> after beta3).
Thanks.

Yeah, directory restructurization in on my todo. I'll try to keep it simple.

-- 
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.

SIPez LLC.
SIP VoIP, IM and Presence Consulting
http://www.SIPez.com
tel: +1 (617) 273-4000

Hi,

We would like to include Speex into our commercial product.  Other than the
revised BSD license, are there any other legal issues such as patents that
we need to be aware of?

Thanks,

- Keith