From helix.dev at gmail.com  Tue Mar  1 07:08:40 2005
From: helix.dev at gmail.com (rahul lal)
Date: Tue Mar  1 08:04:34 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] Re: [datatype-dev] Supporting and playing MPEG-4??
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050228132449.043a5af0@mailone.real.com>
References: <6.1.2.0.2.20050201225022.04451e40@mailone.real.com>
	<5.1.0.14.2.20050202112132.01837d10@mailone.real.com>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20050202173548.045d7140@mailone.real.com>
	
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050228100448.04281340@mailone.real.com>
	
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050228132449.043a5af0@mailone.real.com>
Message-ID: 

Thanks Rishi,

Thanks for the detailed information. Am going to get the Commercial
Use License faxed back. Would need help from you guys from there on.

Highly appreciate the help.

Thanks and Regards,

Rahul Lal
CAC Media



On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:30:23 -0800, Rishi Mathew  wrote:
> We provide source for MPEG4 through the Commercial license. You would have
> to sign this to get access to this source. I am cc'ing the
> licensing@open.helixcommunity.org in this email.
> 
> Here is a list of things that Kevin wrote about from a previous email:
> 1) Print, sign and fax back the Commercial Use License to 206-674-2698. 
> This license will grant you the right (but not obligation) to use our MPEG-4
> decode implementation along with the Helix DNA Client for R&D purposes only.
> 
> 2) Once the above agreement is countersigned by Real, we will enable you
> Helix Community User ID to access the MPEG-4 decoding bits
> 
> 3) Once you are ready to ship your product, you must obtain you MPEG-4
> patent license from MPEGLA.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Rishi.
> 
> 
> At 10:43 AM 2/28/2005, rahul lal wrote:
> Thanks Rishi,
> 
> Is the g2mp4combo codec a part of the regular distribution or it has
> to be downloaded separately.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Rahul lal
> 
> 
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:07:50 -0800, Rishi Mathew  wrote:
> > Yes, if you were able to build the g2mp4combo codec, you would have the
> > MPEG4 decoder, and you should be able to get playback.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Rishi.
> > 
> > P.S. Please cc the appropriate mailing list on all emails.
> > 
> > 
> > At 09:02 AM 2/28/2005, rahul lal wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> >     Is it possible to build the MPEG-4 decoder and playback if we have
> > the MPEG licensing , which we do. In this case what is the best way to
> > go about making the MPEG-4 playback work..
> > 
> > Thanks and regards,
> > 
> > Rahul Lal
> > CAC Media
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:37:25 -0800, Rishi Mathew  wrote:
> > > However, this will not build the MPEG4 video decoder. To the best of my
> > > knowledge, this implementation is not open-source because of some MPEG 
> > > licensing rules.
> > > 
> > > -Rishi.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > At 11:39 AM 2/2/2005, Erik Hodge wrote:
> > > It depends what data types (audio, video, other) are contained
> > > in the file.  Required components are:
> > > (1) the mp4 fileformat plug-in for reading in and packetizing
> > >     the streams for delivery,
> > > (2) the appropriate renderer plug-in to handle each stream,
> > > (3) the appropriate codec to handle decompression of each stream.
> > > 
> > > Build the mpeg4 target and you should get all you need:
> > >           datatype_amr_fileformat
> > >           datatype_mp4_fileformat
> > >           datatype_mp4_audio_renderer
> > >           datatype_mp4_video_renderer
> > >           datatype_h263_renderer
> > >           datatype_amr_codec_amr-nb
> > >           datatype_amr_codec_amr-wb
> > > 
> > > 
> > >         - Erik
> > > 
> > > At 10:10 AM 2/2/2005 -0500, rahul lal wrote:
> > > Hi ,
> > > I am trying to play an MPEG-4 file type using helix player and the
> > > player gives me a message that i am missing components required in
> > > order to play the specified type.
> > > 
> > > Can someone guide me with how to go abt playing the MPEG-4 format.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > 
> > > Rahul
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 23:00:06 -0800, Rishi Mathew 
> wrote:
> > > > Submitted by:
> > > > rmathew
> > > >
> > > > Suggested Reviewer:
> > > > ehodge
> > > >
> > > > Overview:
> > > > Motorola has contributed a patch for mp4a Progressive Download
> reporting
> > > >
> > > > Synopsis:
> > > > 1. Report progressive download status untile the download process is
> > > > completed.
> > > >     Fix the bug playback is not continuous in m4a, when real file size
> > is
> > > > known.
> > > > 2.  Check if current file is in progressive download state again
> before
> > > > process 'mdat'.
> > > >      The value gotten in initial stage may be changed,
> > > >      if yes, the atomization process is completed
> > > >
> > > > Files Modified:
> > > > datatype/mp4/fileformat/qtffplin.cpp
> > > > datatype/mp4/fileformat/atomizer.cpp
> > > >
> > > > Image Size and Heap Use Impact:
> > > > None
> > > >
> > > > Branch:
> > > > HEAD
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Rishi Mathew
> > > > Software Development Engineer
> > > > Helix Development Support Group
> > > > RealNetworks, Inc.
> > > > rmathew@real.com
> > > > 206.892.6126
> > > > http://www.helixcommunity.org
> > > > http://www.realnetworks.com/products/support/devsupport.html
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Datatype-dev mailing list
> > > > Datatype-dev@helixcommunity.org
> > > > http://lists.helixcommunity.org/mailman/listinfo/datatype-dev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Datatype-dev mailing list
> > > Datatype-dev@helixcommunity.org
> > > http://lists.helixcommunity.org/mailman/listinfo/datatype-dev
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Rishi Mathew
> > > Software Development Engineer
> > > Helix Development Support Group
> > > RealNetworks, Inc. 
> > > rmathew@real.com 
> > > 206.892.6126 
> > > http://www.helixcommunity.org
> > > http://www.realnetworks.com/products/support/devsupport.html
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Rishi Mathew
> > Software Development Engineer
> > Helix Development Support Group
> > Rishi Mathew
> > Software Development Engineer
> > Helix Development Support Group
> > Real Networks, Inc. 
> > rmathew@real.com 
> > 206.892.6126 
> > http://www.helixcommunity.org
> > http://www.realnetworks.com/products/support/devsupport.html
> > 
> > 
> >
> 
> 
> Rishi Mathew
> Software Development Engineer
> Helix Development Support Group
> Real Networks, Inc. 
> rmathew@real.com 
> 206.892.6126 
> http://www.helixcommunity.org
> http://www.realnetworks.com/products/support/devsupport.html
>

From Ian.Dimond at Mansella.co.uk  Thu Mar  3 07:37:13 2005
From: Ian.Dimond at Mansella.co.uk (Ian Dimond)
Date: Thu Mar  3 08:31:09 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] RA Voice Licensing
Message-ID: 


I understand that the RealAudio Voice codec contains technology owned by
VoiceAge corp - please could you tell me if a royalty would be payable
to VoiceAge corp if we distributed the RealAudio Voice codec, embedded
in a consumer device.

Regards

Ian Dimond

From hboone at real.com  Thu Mar  3 09:17:03 2005
From: hboone at real.com (Haydon Boone)
Date: Thu Mar  3 09:17:17 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] RA Voice Licensing
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

 No, if you're distributing this technology within a Helix DNA Client-based
product for which you've executed a Helix DNA Client Commercial Use License,
then your distribution of this codec will not incur any additional distribution
fees beyond those detailed in the Helix license.

-/Haydon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-licensing-bounces@helixcommunity.org [mailto:open-licensing-
> bounces@helixcommunity.org] On Behalf Of Ian Dimond
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 7:37 AM
> To: open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
> Subject: [Open-licensing] RA Voice Licensing
> 
> 
> I understand that the RealAudio Voice codec contains technology owned by
> VoiceAge corp - please could you tell me if a royalty would be payable
> to VoiceAge corp if we distributed the RealAudio Voice codec, embedded
> in a consumer device.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Ian Dimond
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Open-licensing mailing list
> Open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
> http://lists.helixcommunity.org/mailman/listinfo/open-licensing


From hboone at real.com  Thu Mar  3 09:35:52 2005
From: hboone at real.com (Haydon Boone)
Date: Thu Mar  3 09:36:06 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] RA Voice Licensing
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 

[Returning to the mailing list.]

Yes, for other 3rd party IP there are IP License and/or Distribution fees that
you'll need to cover.

MPEG-4 Video, AAC, AAC+, AMR (NB and/or WB) are some that pop to mind, possibly
MP3 too but I'll let others on the list chime in on that one.

-/Haydon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Dimond [mailto:Ian.Dimond@mansella.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:26 AM
> To: hboone@real.com
> Subject: RE: [Open-licensing] RA Voice Licensing
> 
> 
> ok, thanks.
> 
> I assume that we would incur additional distribution fees, beyond those
> detailed in the Helix license, for the MPEG-4 - AAC technology in the
> RealAudio 10 high bitrate codec though - can you tell me if that is
> correct?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Ian
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Haydon Boone [mailto:hboone@real.com]
> Sent: 03 March 2005 17:17
> To: Ian Dimond; open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
> Subject: RE: [Open-licensing] RA Voice Licensing
> 
> 
>  No, if you're distributing this technology within a Helix DNA
> Client-based
> product for which you've executed a Helix DNA Client Commercial Use
> License,
> then your distribution of this codec will not incur any additional
> distribution
> fees beyond those detailed in the Helix license.
> 
> -/Haydon
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: open-licensing-bounces@helixcommunity.org
> [mailto:open-licensing-
> > bounces@helixcommunity.org] On Behalf Of Ian Dimond
> > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 7:37 AM
> > To: open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
> > Subject: [Open-licensing] RA Voice Licensing
> >
> >
> > I understand that the RealAudio Voice codec contains technology owned
> by
> > VoiceAge corp - please could you tell me if a royalty would be payable
> > to VoiceAge corp if we distributed the RealAudio Voice codec, embedded
> > in a consumer device.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Ian Dimond
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Open-licensing mailing list
> > Open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
> > http://lists.helixcommunity.org/mailman/listinfo/open-licensing


From yjwen at iii.org.tw  Sun Mar  6 18:53:09 2005
From: yjwen at iii.org.tw (moto)
Date: Sun Mar  6 19:08:07 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] Helix DRM
Message-ID: <000201c522c0$dda8a750$9b3c5c8c@Camelot.trd.iii.org.tw>

Hello.
 
May I ask some questions about Helix DRM?
 
1. How to obtain Helix DRM's SDK? How much?
2. How to obtain licensing information about Helix DRM?
For example : Mircosoft licensing information
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/drm/licensing.aspx
licensing Fees
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/drm/licensingfees.aspx 
 
Thank you very much.
 
Best Regrads,
Moto
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.helixcommunity.org/pipermail/open-licensing/attachments/20050307/db5346bc/attachment.htm
From kevinf at real.com  Sun Mar  6 19:21:20 2005
From: kevinf at real.com (Kevin Foreman)
Date: Sun Mar  6 19:21:29 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] Helix DRM
In-Reply-To: <000201c522c0$dda8a750$9b3c5c8c@Camelot.trd.iii.org.tw>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050306191749.0259fdb0@mailone.real.com>

Are you trying to build a DRM-enabled product, or delivering an 
audio/video-based service?

If product see: https://devicedrm.helixcommunity.org/

If service see: http://www.realnetworks.com/products/drm/index.html


Kevin
-------------------

At 10:53 AM 3/7/2005 +0800, moto wrote:

>Hello.
>
>
>
>May I ask some questions about Helix DRM?
>
>
>
>1. How to obtain Helix DRM's SDK? How much?
>
>2. How to obtain licensing information about Helix DRM?
>
>For example : Mircosoft licensing information 
>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/drm/licensing.aspx
>
>licensing Fees 
>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/drm/licensingfees.aspx
>
>
>
>Thank you very much.
>
>
>
>Best Regrads,
>
>Moto
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Open-licensing mailing list
>Open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
>http://lists.helixcommunity.org/mailman/listinfo/open-licensing

---------
Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.helixcommunity.org/pipermail/open-licensing/attachments/20050306/ce155a3a/attachment.htm
From lqiu at real.com  Mon Mar  7 01:32:56 2005
From: lqiu at real.com (Leon Qiu)
Date: Mon Mar  7 01:33:19 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] about helix DNA producer
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050306191749.0259fdb0@mailone.real.com>
Message-ID: <003c01c522f8$aef85030$5c01a8c0@LEONQGL>

Hi,

A client want to integrate helix DNA producer into their products. This client already signed the commercial distribution license last year, they want to integrate the DNA producer into their products to let their end users encode rv8/rv9 media for their devices. Should they sign any other license, or any other royalty? Thanks.


Leon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.helixcommunity.org/pipermail/open-licensing/attachments/20050307/77bc4cf7/attachment-0001.htm
From kevinf at real.com  Mon Mar  7 05:49:55 2005
From: kevinf at real.com (Kevin Foreman)
Date: Mon Mar  7 05:49:59 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] about helix DNA producer
In-Reply-To: <003c01c522f8$aef85030$5c01a8c0@LEONQGL>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050306191749.0259fdb0@mailone.real.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050307054907.025877a8@mailone.real.com>

No need to sign a new license.

No royalty.

Kevin
---------------

At 05:32 PM 3/7/2005 +0800, Leon Qiu wrote:
>Hi,
>
>A client want to integrate helix DNA producer into their products. This 
>client already signed the commercial distribution license last year, they 
>want to integrate the DNA producer into their products to let their end 
>users encode rv8/rv9 media for their devices. Should they sign any other 
>license, or any other royalty? Thanks.
>
>
>Leon
>
>_______________________________________________
>Open-licensing mailing list
>Open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
>http://lists.helixcommunity.org/mailman/listinfo/open-licensing

---------
Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.helixcommunity.org/pipermail/open-licensing/attachments/20050307/699ca5f4/attachment.htm
From robla at real.com  Thu Mar 10 06:28:19 2005
From: robla at real.com (Rob Lanphier)
Date: Thu Mar 10 06:30:15 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] Referring to licensing of various Helix Player
	components
Message-ID: <1110464899.4332.66.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Hi all,

This message has been cross-posted, but I request that followups go to
open-licensing@helixcommunity.org

There have been several conversations in the Helix Player project
(specifically on the player-dev list) about restructuring the web pages
and the package structure.  In these discussions, there have been many
cases where the tri-licensed GPL/RCSL/RPSL components have been referred
to as "GPL" components.  We've gotta stop using this nomenclature.

The problem is this: as we've been out on the road talking to potential
commercial licensees, they don't realize that the core foundation is
available under licenses other than the GPL, and initially discount the
usability of Helix for their application.

In other cases, even at RealNetworks, there are people that talk about a
"GPL fork" of the code, as though we have multiple versions of the same
code.  When people have such misguided notions, they tend to want to
make bad decisions based on that information.

So, I ask that the team be more accurate when characterizing this code.
It's ok to come up with shorthand, so long as that shorthand is accurate
and doesn't interfere with proper understanding of our licensing.

Here's a suggested taxonomy - I'm open to other suggestions:

"core" - code that is currently licensed under RPSL/RCSL/GPL.  This code
is free and open source, and available under commercial licensing, too.
I'm not in love with the name "core", since it's a pretty overloaded
word, but I would like to come up with something that is independent of
the exact licensing of this code.  For example, if we refer to this as
"tri", Murphy's law dictates that we'll add a fourth license option to
it.  ;-)

"encumbered" - code that is currently licensed under RPSL/RCSL, which
has patent encumbrances that prohibit free (libre) distribution of
binaries in the U.S., but potentially can be freely distributed in other
jurisdictions.  Our MP3 and AAC decoders are examples of code in this
category.

"plus" - stuff that we distribute as binaries only.  RealAudio,
RealVideo, and Flash are examples in this category.

Thoughts on this?

Rob
-- 
Rob Lanphier, Development Support Manager - RealNetworks
Helix Community: http://helixcommunity.org 
Development Support:
http://www.realnetworks.com/products/support/devsupport


From hy_zhou at msn.com  Thu Mar 10 18:14:54 2005
From: hy_zhou at msn.com (Zhouhaoyang)
Date: Thu Mar 10 18:16:27 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] License Fax number
Message-ID: 

Hi all,
     Now I investigate the real A/V porting to our arm platform.
The license we need is RealAudio/RealVideo R&D?? - Real Format Source Code
Porting and Optimization License - Client", Can anyone tell me Fax number, I
can fax  after signing the license.  


Tony Zhou
Fujitsu Microelectronics (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.                          
TEL: 86-21-61007800-232      
FAX:86-21-61007802  


From lqiu at real.com  Thu Mar 10 22:40:49 2005
From: lqiu at real.com (Leon Qiu)
Date: Thu Mar 10 22:40:54 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] Fw: Requirement for bundle your software (trial
	veriosn) into our CD-ROM
Message-ID: <01b201c52605$46218120$1800a8c0@LEONQGL>

Hi,

Below is a request to include realplayer 10 in their distribution CD-ROM. should they sign the RCSL_Commercial_Client license? or they can distribute it freely?


Leon

----- Original Message ----- 
From: \M 
To: hongkong@real.com 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 3:37 PM
Subject: Requirement for bundle your software (trial veriosn) into our CD-ROM


Dear ,

This is Emily writing from Flag Publishing Co., Ltd. Taiwan.

As we're planning to publish a title named "Computer Science 2005" lately, we hope that we can get to bundle your software with our title.  We'll also make sure that a briefly introduction for the software will be shown on our preface of the title. 

Please see the details for title as below:

The details please see below.

Title Name : Computer Science 2005

Title Approximately amount : 20,000 copies

The probably published date : 2005/04

Territory : worldwide 

Software : RealPlayer 10 Chinese Traditional



Let me know if you need any further information, thank you!

Looking forward to your quick reply, and hope to promote your software to our readers in Taiwan!


Best regards,
Emily

FLAG PUBLISHING CO., LTD

11F NO.15-1 SEC.1 HANG CHOW S. ROAD TAIPEI TAIWAN R.O.C.

TEL : 886-2-23963257#551
FAX : 886-2-23218098
URL : http://www.flag.com.tw
E-mail : emily@pd.flag.com.tw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.helixcommunity.org/pipermail/open-licensing/attachments/20050311/1e79ee16/attachment.htm
From lqiu at real.com  Thu Mar 10 23:14:16 2005
From: lqiu at real.com (Leon Qiu)
Date: Thu Mar 10 23:14:19 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] License Fax number
References: 
Message-ID: <01fb01c52609$f1a8cd60$1800a8c0@LEONQGL>

+1 206-674-2698.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Zhouhaoyang" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 10:14 AM
Subject: [Open-licensing] License Fax number


Hi all,
     Now I investigate the real A/V porting to our arm platform.
The license we need is RealAudio/RealVideo R&D - Real Format Source Code
Porting and Optimization License - Client", Can anyone tell me Fax number, I
can fax  after signing the license.


Tony Zhou
Fujitsu Microelectronics (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.
TEL: 86-21-61007800-232
FAX:86-21-61007802


_______________________________________________
Open-licensing mailing list
Open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
http://lists.helixcommunity.org/mailman/listinfo/open-licensing 


From kevinf at real.com  Fri Mar 11 14:50:38 2005
From: kevinf at real.com (Kevin Foreman)
Date: Fri Mar 11 14:50:45 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] Fw: Requirement for bundle your software (trial
	veriosn) into our CD-ROM
In-Reply-To: <01b201c52605$46218120$1800a8c0@LEONQGL>
References: <01b201c52605$46218120$1800a8c0@LEONQGL>
Message-ID: <423220BE.4030805@real.com>

For people who simply want the RealPlayer Windows or Mac in binary,
executable form, they simply need to agree to the "clickwrap" license be=
low:

http://forms.real.com/rnforms/playerdist/licensing/index.html

Only developers who need SOURCE CODE access, need use the RCSL.

Kevin
--------------------

Leon Qiu wrote:

> Hi,
> Below is a request to include realplayer 10 in their distribution
> CD-ROM. should they sign the RCSL_Commercial_Client license? or they
> can distribute it freely?
> Leon
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* =B6=C0=AF\=B2M 
> *To:* hongkong@real.com 
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2005 3:37 PM
> *Subject:* Requirement for bundle your software (trial veriosn) into
> our CD-ROM
>
> Dear ,
> This is Emily writing from Flag Publishing Co., Ltd. Taiwan.
> As we're planning to publish a title named "Computer Science 2005"
> lately, we hope that we can get to bundle your software with our
> title. We'll also make sure that a briefly introduction for the
> software will be shown on our preface of the title.
> Please see the details for title as below:
>
> The details please see below.
>
> Title Name : Computer Science 2005
>
> Title Approximately amount : 20,000 copies
>
> The probably published date : 2005/04
>
> Territory : worldwide
>
> Software : RealPlayer 10 Chinese Traditional
>
> Let me know if you need any further information, thank you!
> Looking forward to your quick reply, and hope to promote your software
> to our readers in Taiwan!
> Best regards,
> Emily
>
> FLAG PUBLISHING CO., LTD
>
> 11F NO.15-1 SEC.1 HANG CHOW S. ROAD TAIPEI TAIWAN R.O.C.
>
> TEL : 886-2-23963257#551
> FAX : 886-2-23218098
> URL : http://www.flag.com.tw 
> E-mail : emily@pd.flag.com.tw 
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
>
>_______________________________________________
>Open-licensing mailing list
>Open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
>http://lists.helixcommunity.org/mailman/listinfo/open-licensing
>  
>

From arik.dasen at swissqual.com  Mon Mar 14 07:30:43 2005
From: arik.dasen at swissqual.com (Arik Dasen)
Date: Mon Mar 14 10:43:51 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] Licensing of Helix DNA Server
Message-ID: <4235AE23.7080703@swissqual.com>

Hi

We want to use Helix DNA Server in our commercial product to stream 
RealFormat files. I could not find any information about licensing Helix 
DNA Server and I'm not too sure about licensing RealFormat usage.
Can you provide me some information on how we have to license Helix DNA 
Server for use in the following scenario?

1 Helix DNA Server (as part of our server product)
10 video clips in Real format (built with Real Producer)
1-10 clients (RealPlayer as part of our client software)

We only intend to use the binary distribution (no source code)

regards
Arik Dasen

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arik Dasen - Senior Software Engineer
SwissQual AG - Gewerbestrasse 2 - CH-4528 Zuchwil - Switzerland
mobile: +41 79 614 70 14 / Fax: +41 32 685 08 31
----------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------
****************************************************************
The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be gally
privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). It may
contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not
the intended recipient, please destroy this message and notify
us immediately. Any disclosure, copying or distribution of this
message is prohibited and may be unlawful.
****************************************************************

From Ian.Dimond at Mansella.co.uk  Thu Mar 10 08:53:08 2005
From: Ian.Dimond at Mansella.co.uk (Ian Dimond)
Date: Mon Mar 14 10:44:08 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] RA Voice Licensing
Message-ID: 


Hi,

Please could you tell me if it is possible to licence the RealAudio
codecs without the Helix player? 

We are developing a new device and are currently looking at a software
solution that provides an integrated media player. We are looking at the
possibility of adding RealAudio codecs to this existing player.

Can the source code for the codecs be provided to us for this purpose?

Would it be possible for us to port the ra-voice codec? I understand
that you only provide binaries for ra-voice.

What are the licensing fees for the codecs?

Regards

Ian Dimond

-----Original Message-----
From: Haydon Boone [mailto:hboone@real.com]
Sent: 03 March 2005 17:36
To: Ian Dimond; open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
Subject: RE: [Open-licensing] RA Voice Licensing


[Returning to the mailing list.]

Yes, for other 3rd party IP there are IP License and/or Distribution
fees that
you'll need to cover.

MPEG-4 Video, AAC, AAC+, AMR (NB and/or WB) are some that pop to mind,
possibly
MP3 too but I'll let others on the list chime in on that one.

-/Haydon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Dimond [mailto:Ian.Dimond@mansella.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:26 AM
> To: hboone@real.com
> Subject: RE: [Open-licensing] RA Voice Licensing
> 
> 
> ok, thanks.
> 
> I assume that we would incur additional distribution fees, beyond
those
> detailed in the Helix license, for the MPEG-4 - AAC technology in the
> RealAudio 10 high bitrate codec though - can you tell me if that is
> correct?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Ian
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Haydon Boone [mailto:hboone@real.com]
> Sent: 03 March 2005 17:17
> To: Ian Dimond; open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
> Subject: RE: [Open-licensing] RA Voice Licensing
> 
> 
>  No, if you're distributing this technology within a Helix DNA
> Client-based
> product for which you've executed a Helix DNA Client Commercial Use
> License,
> then your distribution of this codec will not incur any additional
> distribution
> fees beyond those detailed in the Helix license.
> 
> -/Haydon
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: open-licensing-bounces@helixcommunity.org
> [mailto:open-licensing-
> > bounces@helixcommunity.org] On Behalf Of Ian Dimond
> > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 7:37 AM
> > To: open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
> > Subject: [Open-licensing] RA Voice Licensing
> >
> >
> > I understand that the RealAudio Voice codec contains technology
owned
> by
> > VoiceAge corp - please could you tell me if a royalty would be
payable
> > to VoiceAge corp if we distributed the RealAudio Voice codec,
embedded
> > in a consumer device.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Ian Dimond
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Open-licensing mailing list
> > Open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
> > http://lists.helixcommunity.org/mailman/listinfo/open-licensing


From Tony.Zhou at fmc.fujitsu.com  Thu Mar 10 18:13:21 2005
From: Tony.Zhou at fmc.fujitsu.com (Tony Zhou - SH)
Date: Mon Mar 14 10:44:21 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] License Fax number
Message-ID: <318C07C159C346498605954846FBADA30C9C00@fmcshmsex01.fmc.fujitsu.com>

Hi all,
     Now I investigate the real A/V porting to our arm platform.
The license we need is RealAudio/RealVideo R&D?? - Real Format Source Code Porting and Optimization License - Client", Can anyone tell me Fax number, I can fax  after signing the license.  


Tony Zhou
Fujitsu Microelectronics (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.                          
TEL: 86-21-61007800-232      
FAX:86-21-61007802  

From kevinf at real.com  Mon Mar 14 11:00:06 2005
From: kevinf at real.com (Kevin Foreman)
Date: Mon Mar 14 11:00:11 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] License Fax number
In-Reply-To: <318C07C159C346498605954846FBADA30C9C00@fmcshmsex01.fmc.fujitsu.com>
References: <318C07C159C346498605954846FBADA30C9C00@fmcshmsex01.fmc.fujitsu.com>
Message-ID: <4235DF36.9090106@real.com>

F: 206-674-2698

Tony Zhou - SH wrote:

>Hi all,
>     Now I investigate the real A/V porting to our arm platform.
>The license we need is RealAudio/RealVideo R&D   - Real Format Source Code Porting and Optimization License - Client", Can anyone tell me Fax number, I can fax  after signing the license.  
>
>
>Tony Zhou
>Fujitsu Microelectronics (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.                          
>TEL: 86-21-61007800-232      
>FAX:86-21-61007802  
>
>_______________________________________________
>Open-licensing mailing list
>Open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
>http://lists.helixcommunity.org/mailman/listinfo/open-licensing
>
>  
>

From kevinf at real.com  Mon Mar 14 14:47:16 2005
From: kevinf at real.com (Kevin Foreman)
Date: Mon Mar 14 14:47:21 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] Licensing of Helix DNA Server
In-Reply-To: <4235AE23.7080703@swissqual.com>
References: <4235AE23.7080703@swissqual.com>
Message-ID: <42361474.7030909@real.com>

Commercial Use of the Helix DNA Server with RealMedia File format 
support is $500/CPU.  There is no restriction (other than hardware 
capacity) on number of clips or number of simultaneous connected users.


Kevin
------------------------------------


Arik Dasen wrote:

> Hi
>
> We want to use Helix DNA Server in our commercial product to stream 
> RealFormat files. I could not find any information about licensing 
> Helix DNA Server and I'm not too sure about licensing RealFormat usage.
> Can you provide me some information on how we have to license Helix 
> DNA Server for use in the following scenario?
>
> 1 Helix DNA Server (as part of our server product)
> 10 video clips in Real format (built with Real Producer)
> 1-10 clients (RealPlayer as part of our client software)
>
> We only intend to use the binary distribution (no source code)
>
> regards
> Arik Dasen
>

From kevinf at real.com  Mon Mar 14 15:15:18 2005
From: kevinf at real.com (Kevin Foreman)
Date: Mon Mar 14 15:15:47 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] RA Voice Licensing
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: <42361B06.1010708@real.com>

/Answers below:

Please could you tell me if it is possible to license the RealAudio
codecs without the Helix player? /

Yes, as of last month,  you can now license RealAudio and RealVideo 
without the Helix DNA Client.    Here 
 is the 
Commercial Distribution agreement for both or either of the Helix DNA 
Client and/or RealAudio/RealVideo playback.  We've made this policy 
change to enable very low end devices to playback RA/RV (eg DVD 
players).  The commercial terms are identical if you use the Helix DNA 
Client or not, so there is no financial benefit not to leverage the 
power of the Helix DNA Client.    If you are building a mobile device, I 
would strongly advise you the leverage the Helix DNA Client.  Its 
compatible with the 70+ operators infrastructure 
 and should 
lower your overall qualification and certification time.

/Can the source code for the codecs be provided to us for this purpose?/

The source code of RA/RV is provided for porting/optimization purposes, 
as a interim step towards Commercial Use above.  See: 
https://helixcommunity.org/content/Real_Format_Source_Code_Client.pdf.

/Would it be possible for us to port the ra-voice codec? /

Yes.  Today you need to contact VoiceAge for source code access to 
ACELP.NET.  They will charge you a one time fee, but the good news is 
that your distribution license is included in our Commercial Use License.

/What are the licensing fees for the codecs?/

The same as the fees for the Helix DNA Client and RA/RV...$0.25/unit to 
a cap of $1M/yr/mfr for non-Windows PC devices.  See Commercial Use 
agreement.

Kevin
-----------------

 

Ian Dimond wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Please could you tell me if it is possible to licence the RealAudio
>codecs without the Helix player? 
>
>We are developing a new device and are currently looking at a software
>solution that provides an integrated media player. We are looking at the
>possibility of adding RealAudio codecs to this existing player.
>
>Can the source code for the codecs be provided to us for this purpose?
>
>Would it be possible for us to port the ra-voice codec? I understand
>that you only provide binaries for ra-voice.
>
>What are the licensing fees for the codecs?
>
>Regards
>
>Ian Dimond
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Haydon Boone [mailto:hboone@real.com]
>Sent: 03 March 2005 17:36
>To: Ian Dimond; open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
>Subject: RE: [Open-licensing] RA Voice Licensing
>
>
>[Returning to the mailing list.]
>
>Yes, for other 3rd party IP there are IP License and/or Distribution
>fees that
>you'll need to cover.
>
>MPEG-4 Video, AAC, AAC+, AMR (NB and/or WB) are some that pop to mind,
>possibly
>MP3 too but I'll let others on the list chime in on that one.
>
>-/Haydon
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Ian Dimond [mailto:Ian.Dimond@mansella.co.uk]
>>Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:26 AM
>>To: hboone@real.com
>>Subject: RE: [Open-licensing] RA Voice Licensing
>>
>>
>>ok, thanks.
>>
>>I assume that we would incur additional distribution fees, beyond
>>    
>>
>those
>  
>
>>detailed in the Helix license, for the MPEG-4 - AAC technology in the
>>RealAudio 10 high bitrate codec though - can you tell me if that is
>>correct?
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Ian
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Haydon Boone [mailto:hboone@real.com]
>>Sent: 03 March 2005 17:17
>>To: Ian Dimond; open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
>>Subject: RE: [Open-licensing] RA Voice Licensing
>>
>>
>> No, if you're distributing this technology within a Helix DNA
>>Client-based
>>product for which you've executed a Helix DNA Client Commercial Use
>>License,
>>then your distribution of this codec will not incur any additional
>>distribution
>>fees beyond those detailed in the Helix license.
>>
>>-/Haydon
>>
>>    
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: open-licensing-bounces@helixcommunity.org
>>>      
>>>
>>[mailto:open-licensing-
>>    
>>
>>>bounces@helixcommunity.org] On Behalf Of Ian Dimond
>>>Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 7:37 AM
>>>To: open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
>>>Subject: [Open-licensing] RA Voice Licensing
>>>
>>>
>>>I understand that the RealAudio Voice codec contains technology
>>>      
>>>
>owned
>  
>
>>by
>>    
>>
>>>VoiceAge corp - please could you tell me if a royalty would be
>>>      
>>>
>payable
>  
>
>>>to VoiceAge corp if we distributed the RealAudio Voice codec,
>>>      
>>>
>embedded
>  
>
>>>in a consumer device.
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>
>>>Ian Dimond
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Open-licensing mailing list
>>>Open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
>>>http://lists.helixcommunity.org/mailman/listinfo/open-licensing
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Open-licensing mailing list
>Open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
>http://lists.helixcommunity.org/mailman/listinfo/open-licensing
>
>  
>

From herbet at mobile-elab.com  Mon Mar 14 22:06:55 2005
From: herbet at mobile-elab.com (Herbet FY)
Date: Wed Mar 16 09:18:19 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] Mobile Streaming Server
Message-ID: 

Dear All,
 
We would like to ask several question regarding streaming.
 
We're company have core business in value added service for mobile
telecommunication.
We plan to distribute mobile streaming content.
We've already have the content.
What we need is the application acted as mobile streaming server.

Our question:
- Which application we can use for this purpose?
- What tyoe format supported by Helix DNA?
- How's the license for the application?
 
I'd appreciate for any prompt response.
 
many thanks,
	
 
 
 
Herbet FY
VP Technology
  herbet@mobile-elab.com
 
PT Antar Mitra Prakarsa
Jl.Tulodong Bawah II No.3
Jakarta 12190
tel: 62-21-5266988
fax: 62-21-5737559
mobile: 62-812-8056321 
  http://www.m-stars.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.helixcommunity.org/pipermail/open-licensing/attachments/20050315/2a66fe8c/attachment-0001.htm
From vinnum at hotmail.com  Tue Mar 15 22:27:42 2005
From: vinnum at hotmail.com (vinay kumar maddineni)
Date: Wed Mar 16 09:18:19 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] Open Licensing and DRM Information
Message-ID: 

hello,
We are planning to start live streaming of Video and Audio using Helix DNA 
server with DRM and without it. Also for Future we want to do on demand 
reach media content with DRM. We have following questions regarding the 
technology and pricing
1.Can we do live Streaming with DRM technology to prevent improper/illegal 
access to the streams
2.What type of authentication sources can we use with DNA server.
3. Can we use DRM with Helix DNA server or we need the Universal server.
4.Do we need to by additional DNA server licenses for on demand with DRM.
5 Pricing for the DRM for Helix server.
6. What will be the price to upgrade the DNA server or DRM for future
7. How to acquire the open source license to start on a single Server.
8.Support for Helix DNA server and DRM

Your help is greatly appreciated. Looking forward for your response.

Regards
Vinay Kumar Maddineni
917-685-4383



From kevinf at real.com  Thu Mar 17 00:42:45 2005
From: kevinf at real.com (Kevin Foreman)
Date: Thu Mar 17 00:42:53 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] Mobile Streaming Server
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: <42394305.4010804@real.com>

Herbet thanks for your email.  Since you are in Jakarta and you need 
access to the Helix DNA powered Helix Universal Server Mobile product, 
let me introduce you to Tom Freed, cc'd here, who runs Real's Mobile 
business in SE Asia.  He can assist you directly.

Kevin
----------------

Herbet FY wrote:

> Dear All,
>  
> We would like to ask several question regarding streaming.
>  
> We're company have core business in value added service for mobile 
> telecommunication.
> We plan to distribute mobile streaming content.
> We've already have the content.
> What we need is the application acted as mobile streaming server.
>
> Our question:
> - Which application we can use for this purpose?
> - What tyoe format supported by Helix DNA?
> - How's the license for the application?
>  
> I'd appreciate for any prompt response.
>  
> many thanks,
>
>  
>  
>  
> *Herbet FY
> */VP Technology/
> herbet@mobile-elab.com 
>  
> *PT Antar Mitra Prakarsa*
> Jl.Tulodong Bawah II No.3
> Jakarta 12190
> tel: 62-21-5266988
> fax: 62-21-5737559
> mobile: 62-812-8056321
> http://www.m-stars.net 
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Open-licensing mailing list
>Open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
>http://lists.helixcommunity.org/mailman/listinfo/open-licensing
>  
>

-- 
-----------------
Kevin Foreman,
GM, Helix
RealNetworks, Inc.
T: 206-674-2244
E: kevinf@real.com
https://helixcommunity.org


From kevinf at real.com  Thu Mar 17 01:03:04 2005
From: kevinf at real.com (Kevin Foreman)
Date: Thu Mar 17 01:03:13 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] Open Licensing and DRM Information
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: <423947C8.6040502@real.com>

Answers inline:


vinay kumar maddineni wrote:

> hello,
> We are planning to start live streaming of Video and Audio using Helix 
> DNA server with DRM and without it. Also for Future we want to do on 
> demand reach media content with DRM. We have following questions 
> regarding the technology and pricing
> 1.Can we do live Streaming with DRM technology to prevent 
> improper/illegal access to the streams

yes this is possible to do.

> 2.What type of authentication sources can we use with DNA server.

There a few choices here.

> 3. Can we use DRM with Helix DNA server or we need the Universal server.

I believe you can use Real's Helix DRM 
 with the Helix DNA 
Server directly. 

>
> 4.Do we need to by additional DNA server licenses for on demand with DRM.

Not for on demand use per se.  In other words, the same server can be 
use for both Live and On demand webcasting.

> 5 Pricing for the DRM for Helix server.

Highly variable based on your specific environment, since you are in VA, 
I will have Mike Foy contact you directly (cc'd here)

> 6. What will be the price to upgrade the DNA server or DRM for future

These are separate products today that work together, so there is no 
"upgrade price" per se.

> 7. How to acquire the open source license to start on a single Server.

See https://helix-server.helixcommunity.org/

> 8.Support for Helix DNA server and DRM

Real offer "Upgrades and Support" for its Helix DNA-powered Server 
products as well as Helix DRM.  Mike can walk you through these options.

Kevin

>
> Your help is greatly appreciated. Looking forward for your response.
>
> Regards
> Vinay Kumar Maddineni
> 917-685-4383
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Open-licensing mailing list
> Open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
> http://lists.helixcommunity.org/mailman/listinfo/open-licensing
>

-- 
-----------------
Kevin Foreman,
GM, Helix
RealNetworks, Inc.
T: 206-674-2244
E: kevinf@real.com
https://helixcommunity.org


From kevinf at real.com  Fri Mar 18 12:00:45 2005
From: kevinf at real.com (Kevin Foreman)
Date: Fri Mar 18 12:00:56 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] Referring to licensing of various Helix Player
	components
In-Reply-To: <1110464899.4332.66.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1110464899.4332.66.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <423B336D.1000804@real.com>

Sorry for the late reply and thanks for driving this item.

My thoughts/questions. 

1) Is "common" a better choice than "core"? 

2) Is "add-on" or "extra(s)" better or worse than "plus"?

I am fine with  "encumbered".

Kevin
-------------------------------



Rob Lanphier wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>This message has been cross-posted, but I request that followups go to
>open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
>
>There have been several conversations in the Helix Player project
>(specifically on the player-dev list) about restructuring the web pages
>and the package structure.  In these discussions, there have been many
>cases where the tri-licensed GPL/RCSL/RPSL components have been referred
>to as "GPL" components.  We've gotta stop using this nomenclature.
>
>The problem is this: as we've been out on the road talking to potential
>commercial licensees, they don't realize that the core foundation is
>available under licenses other than the GPL, and initially discount the
>usability of Helix for their application.
>
>In other cases, even at RealNetworks, there are people that talk about a
>"GPL fork" of the code, as though we have multiple versions of the same
>code.  When people have such misguided notions, they tend to want to
>make bad decisions based on that information.
>
>So, I ask that the team be more accurate when characterizing this code.
>It's ok to come up with shorthand, so long as that shorthand is accurate
>and doesn't interfere with proper understanding of our licensing.
>
>Here's a suggested taxonomy - I'm open to other suggestions:
>
>"core" - code that is currently licensed under RPSL/RCSL/GPL.  This code
>is free and open source, and available under commercial licensing, too.
>I'm not in love with the name "core", since it's a pretty overloaded
>word, but I would like to come up with something that is independent of
>the exact licensing of this code.  For example, if we refer to this as
>"tri", Murphy's law dictates that we'll add a fourth license option to
>it.  ;-)
>
>"encumbered" - code that is currently licensed under RPSL/RCSL, which
>has patent encumbrances that prohibit free (libre) distribution of
>binaries in the U.S., but potentially can be freely distributed in other
>jurisdictions.  Our MP3 and AAC decoders are examples of code in this
>category.
>
>"plus" - stuff that we distribute as binaries only.  RealAudio,
>RealVideo, and Flash are examples in this category.
>
>Thoughts on this?
>
>Rob
>  
>

-- 
-----------------
Kevin Foreman,
GM, Helix
RealNetworks, Inc.
T: 206-674-2244
E: kevinf@real.com
https://helixcommunity.org


From robla at real.com  Fri Mar 18 14:00:50 2005
From: robla at real.com (Rob Lanphier)
Date: Fri Mar 18 14:03:18 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] Referring to licensing of various Helix
	Player components
In-Reply-To: <423B336D.1000804@real.com>
References: <1110464899.4332.66.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<423B336D.1000804@real.com>
Message-ID: <1111183250.3871.71.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Hi Kevin,

This may be a good topic for the telecon. First, responses to your
questions:

> 1) Is "common" a better choice than "core"? 

"common" is about as overloaded as "core".

How about "libre", which is the term the Free Software Foundation uses
to distinguish "free" as in "no cost" ("gratis") versus "free" as in
"liberty" ("libre")?  It's descriptive without being overly constraining
regarding the exact licensing.

"nodist" is a term used by the server team as well, which refers to the
fact that there are no components being pulled from the "distribution"
project.  If we were starting from scratch, I'd prefer "libre", but it
may be good to use what the server team has already established as their
standard practice.  That said, there are a bunch of parts of the server
that are only dual-licensed, so maybe we keep the dist-free server named
"nodist", but refer to the core Helix Player as "libre".

> 2) Is "add-on" or "extra(s)" better or worse than "plus"?

Possibly.  I like "plus" for the sole reason that it's good enough and
it aligns with what the server team is already doing.  If we were
starting from a totally clean slate, I'd probably agree that your
suggestions are better, but I'd rather not futz with it if we don't have
to.  Do you have a strong objection to "plus"?

Here's the summary of where we are at so far:

Category 1: 
code that is currently licensed under RPSL/RCSL/GPL.  This code is free
and open source, and available under commercial licensing, too. I'm not
in love with the name "core", since it's a pretty overloaded word, but I
would like to come up with something that is independent of the exact
licensing of this code.  For example, if we refer to this as "tri",
Murphy's law dictates that we'll add a fourth license option to it.  ;-)

Options for Category 1: 
* "core"
* "common"
* "libre"
* "nodist"

Category 2:
code that is currently licensed under RPSL/RCSL, which has patent
encumbrances that prohibit free (libre) distribution of binaries in the
U.S., but potentially can be freely distributed in other jurisdictions.
Our MP3 and AAC decoders are examples of code in this category.

Options for Category 2:
*  "encumbered"

Category 3:
Stuff that we distribute as binaries only.  RealAudio, RealVideo, and
Flash are examples in this category.

Options for Category 3:
*  "plus"
* "add-on"
* "extra(s)"

Thoughts on this?  I'd like to resolve this in the telecon.

Rob

On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 12:00 -0800, Kevin Foreman wrote:
> Sorry for the late reply and thanks for driving this item.
> 
> My thoughts/questions. 
> 
> 1) Is "common" a better choice than "core"? 
> 
> 2) Is "add-on" or "extra(s)" better or worse than "plus"?
> 
> I am fine with  "encumbered".
> 
> Kevin
> -------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> Rob Lanphier wrote:
> 
> >Hi all,
> >
> >This message has been cross-posted, but I request that followups go to
> >open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
> >
> >There have been several conversations in the Helix Player project
> >(specifically on the player-dev list) about restructuring the web pages
> >and the package structure.  In these discussions, there have been many
> >cases where the tri-licensed GPL/RCSL/RPSL components have been referred
> >to as "GPL" components.  We've gotta stop using this nomenclature.
> >
> >The problem is this: as we've been out on the road talking to potential
> >commercial licensees, they don't realize that the core foundation is
> >available under licenses other than the GPL, and initially discount the
> >usability of Helix for their application.
> >
> >In other cases, even at RealNetworks, there are people that talk about a
> >"GPL fork" of the code, as though we have multiple versions of the same
> >code.  When people have such misguided notions, they tend to want to
> >make bad decisions based on that information.
> >
> >So, I ask that the team be more accurate when characterizing this code.
> >It's ok to come up with shorthand, so long as that shorthand is accurate
> >and doesn't interfere with proper understanding of our licensing.
> >
> >Here's a suggested taxonomy - I'm open to other suggestions:
> >
> >"core" - code that is currently licensed under RPSL/RCSL/GPL.  This code
> >is free and open source, and available under commercial licensing, too.
> >I'm not in love with the name "core", since it's a pretty overloaded
> >word, but I would like to come up with something that is independent of
> >the exact licensing of this code.  For example, if we refer to this as
> >"tri", Murphy's law dictates that we'll add a fourth license option to
> >it.  ;-)
> >
> >"encumbered" - code that is currently licensed under RPSL/RCSL, which
> >has patent encumbrances that prohibit free (libre) distribution of
> >binaries in the U.S., but potentially can be freely distributed in other
> >jurisdictions.  Our MP3 and AAC decoders are examples of code in this
> >category.
> >
> >"plus" - stuff that we distribute as binaries only.  RealAudio,
> >RealVideo, and Flash are examples in this category.
> >
> >Thoughts on this?
> >
> >Rob
> >  
> >
> 
-- 
Rob Lanphier, Development Support Manager - RealNetworks
Helix Community: http://helixcommunity.org 
Development Support:
http://www.realnetworks.com/products/support/devsupport


From corius at nextreaming.com  Wed Mar 30 04:54:39 2005
From: corius at nextreaming.com (Hyo-Kyum Kim)
Date: Wed Mar 30 12:14:50 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] about RCSL License!
Message-ID: 

Dear all

 

Glad to meet you.

I'm H.Kelly, an assistant manager of Nextreaming, in South Korea.

Nextreaming wants to use Helix DNA Client, but there are some confusing
points about Helix licenses.

I want to figure out what is the difference between 'RCSL-R&D' and 'RCSL
commercial use', in the points of below,

First, the range of provided source code (for example, RealAudio codec,
RealVideo codec, '.rm' file format,RDT, etc).

Second, any difference in rights or obligations of licensee except
things with royalty (for example, the obligation to submit the modified
part of the code to the helix community)

 

Could you please explain for above problem?

 

Thank you.

 

Sincerely,

Hyokyum

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyokyum Kelly Kim

Assistant Manager

Embedded Application Marketing Team

Embedded Application Division
Nextreaming Corporation, www.nextreaming.com
 
corius@nextreaming.com,  +82-2-2194-5125, +82-17-709-6186
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments contain information that is
confidential and 
proprietary to Nextreaming.  No part of this information may be
disclosed, 
used, copied, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior
written 
permission from Nextreaming.  If you are not the intended recipient,
please 
contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.helixcommunity.org/pipermail/open-licensing/attachments/20050330/8bad7069/attachment-0001.htm
From kevinf at real.com  Wed Mar 30 15:14:43 2005
From: kevinf at real.com (Kevin Foreman)
Date: Wed Mar 30 15:14:49 2005
Subject: [Open-licensing] about RCSL License!
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: <424B32E3.9090002@real.com>

Hyokyum, first thanks for your note.

- The Helix DNA Client  RCSL "R&D" provides for source code of the 3GPP 
rel-6 complaint media engine.  (Binaries on many codecs are provided for 
personal or R&D use with the EULA 
)

- The Real Format Source Code Porting And Optimization License - Client 
  
provides source code access to RealAudio/RealVideo for porting 
/optimizing to a specific platform (usually a specific chip) - i.e. No 
distribution rights.

- The Commercial Use License 
 provides 
for distribution rights of either or both the Helix DNA Client and/or 
RealAudio/RealVideo binaries.

I'm not sure about your second question.  The rights and obligations of 
the Helix DNA Client RCSL R&D and the RCSL Commercial Use are very 
different.   Can you please be more specific. Sorry.


By the way, I have removed both your contact information and your 
boilerplate confidentiality notice, since this is a public community and 
mailing list.

Kevin
--------------------------------

Hyo-Kyum Kim wrote:

> Dear all
>
>  
>
> Glad to meet you.
>
> I'm H.Kelly, an assistant manager of Nextreaming, in South Korea.
>
> Nextreaming wants to use Helix DNA Client, but there are some 
> confusing points about Helix licenses.
>
> I want to figure out what is the difference between 'RCSL-R&D' and 
> 'RCSL commercial use', in the points of below,
>
> First, the range of provided source code (for example, RealAudio 
> codec, RealVideo codec, '.rm' file format,RDT, etc).
>
> Second, any difference in rights or obligations of licensee except 
> things with royalty (for example, the obligation to submit the 
> modified part of the code to the helix community)
>
>  
>
> Could you please explain for above problem?
>
>  
>
> Thank you.
>
>  
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Hyokyum
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Open-licensing mailing list
>Open-licensing@helixcommunity.org
>http://lists.helixcommunity.org/mailman/listinfo/open-licensing
>  
>

-- 
-----------------
Kevin Foreman,
GM, Helix
RealNetworks, Inc.
T: 206-674-2244
E: kevinf@real.com
https://helixcommunity.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.helixcommunity.org/pipermail/open-licensing/attachments/20050330/49a5dd01/attachment.htm
 

Site Map   |   Terms of Use   |   Privacy Policy   |   Contact Us

Copyright © 1995-2007 RealNetworks, Inc. All rights reserved. RealNetworks and Helix are trademarks of RealNetworks.
All other trademarks or registered trademarks are the property of their respective holders.