[Open-licensing] RE: FW: License problem

Hi Jacky,

1. Those are the way that code changes are submitted to the Helix
Community. You will be using patch submittal.

https://common.helixcommunity.org/2005/patch/ Scott Nelson

At 01:48 AM 6/28/2006, =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?7eXq7vKk?= wrote:

Hello Scott,

Very thank you for your kindly reply.

Because open open-licensing doesn¡¯t give me a reply, so I try this
e-mail address.

1.

From the attached SOW view, what is the ¡°code branch selection¡± on
section 3.4 and patch submittal on section 3.5?

Could you kindly tell me what is it?

Magic Pixel Inc

Department Manager

System Engineering Dept. IV / R&D Division III

Jacky Chang

----------

From: Scott Nelson
[ mailto:[email protected] ]

Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 6:10 AM

To: [email protected]

Cc: [email protected]

Subject: Re: FW: License problem

Hi Jacky,

Below are the answers to your questions. If you have more regarding
licenses, etc. send them to me and
[email protected] and I will get back to you.

1.. Yes you should complete the

Real Format Source Code Porting and Optimization License -
Decoder . the other one you mentioned (- Client)
is the older one that we no longer use.

2. Most people just sign it. If you
do it will delay processing significantly and we may not accept it.
What is it you want to change?

3. Code means source code.

4. If you agree to the

Real Format Source Code Porting and Optimization License -
Decoder you need to provide a brief SOW within 60
days. It takes about 10 minutes to complete. I have attached the SOW
template that you would use. If this did not answer your question please
ask again. :-) How useful they are and how you implement optimizations
determines if you need to provide anything back to us or not.

Thank you,

Scott Nelson

Dir Helix

At 09:05 PM 6/21/2006,
=?big5?B?sWmxqafT?= wrote:

Hello,

We are media processor chip vendor for mobile phone, PMP and DPF product
line. We want to porting real-audio decoder solution to our chip for our
customer requirement. So we want to license the real-audio source
code.

After optimization, we will delivery the binary code to our system
application customer if she has got RCSL-commercial license.

We have the following question.

1. Should we sign
¢®¡×real-format source code porting and optimization license-decoder¢®¡§
or ¢®¡×real-format source code porting and optimization
license-client¢®¡§ ?

2.
Could we have opportunity to modify the license file?

3.
There are many ¢®¡×code¢®¡§ noun on the license file. the code
mean only source code, does it include binary code.?

4. Do you have the commercial payment source code license that it
doesn¢®¦t need SOW?

i.e., we don¢®¦t need to feed back optimization source code to
RN

Please kindly give me a response

Thanks

Best Regards

Mi

Magic Pixel Inc

Department Manager

System Engineering Dept. IV / R&D Division III

Jacky Chang

Scott Nelson

Dir. Bus. Dev. Helix

www.helixcommunity.org

Office 925 838-5536 Mobile 925 890-5306

"The
overall best codec was RealNetworks RealVideo." StreamingMedia.com article by
Jan
Ozer 3/22/06

Scott Nelson

Dir. Bus. Dev. Helix

www.helixcommunity.org Office 925 838-5536 Mobile 925 890-5306

"The
overall best codec was RealNetworks RealVideo." StreamingMedia.com article by
Jan
Ozer 3/22/06

_______________________________________________
Open-licensing mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.helixcommunity.org/mailman/listinfo/open-licensing