On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 09:54:48AM +0000, Martin Mathieson wrote:
> Re-reading the terms quoted by Guy, my impression is that its the algorithm
> rather than the reference implementation that the administrative charge
> gives an organisation access to, so re-implementing would not help.
I don't care about "impressions" about license agreements :-) It's either
patented or it isn't. In case it isn't, there's nothing prohibiting us from
doing our own implementation if we want to.
So if you could provide a sample capture plus the necessary keys, I could
try my luck in implementing this (OK, that would be time not spent on cmake
stuff, but I can live with that ;-)
If it is your own implementation, it would be nice to get at least the
.h file into the source, that way I could make a complatible implementation.
If we don't do anything, the the include statements and the lib invocations
would have to be removed.
Ciao
Jörg
--
Joerg Mayer <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx>
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that
works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.
