User talk:Gabriel Bouvigne

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --*Kat* 09:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Dear Gabriel
I have revised your changes to Audicom, MP3, Broadcast Automation and Audio Data Compression I found a correct interpretation of the facts. Now I think that you give a fair point of view. I will add some references with no change of your texts Thank you for your contributions

OscarJuan (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)OscarJuan

"MP3 patents are technically not software patents"
In what way? – Smyth\talk 14:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * They are patents on processes, according to their wording. They might be implemented by software, but also by electrical devices, so they are not inherently software-related. I agree that in today's world they will be implemented in software in more than 99.99% of the cases, but they still stand legally, software or not.--Gabriel Bouvigne 12:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If a patent covering a complex data-manipulation algorithm is not a software patent, then what is? – Smyth\talk 16:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, but mp3 or aac related patents are clearly not such patents, if you read them. --Gabriel Bouvigne 10:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that was a literal question. What would you consider an example of an actual software patent? – Smyth\talk 17:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Quicksort/bubblesort would be software patents, in my opinion. "Taking two input signals, summing them to create a first new signal, creating a second new signal as a difference of the two input signals, and use a device to transmit those two new signals, then recreating the two original signals from within a reception device" or something like that would not be a software patent to me (except if you consider turntables and fm radio receivers to be pieces of software).

Surely it is infinitely easier to implement bubblesort in hardware than MP3? I can almost picture a mechanical device passing back and forth along a line of things, repeatedly comparing neighbours. :) – Smyth\talk 15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not because something is algorithmical that it can not be implemented using hardware devices. You are reversing things there. The point is that the patents covering mp3 are not describing algorithms. They are also not describing specifically mp3. I think that you did not actually studied those patents, am I right? --Gabriel Bouvigne 07:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just taken a look at US patent 5,579,430, which describes taking a PCM stream, transforming it into the frequency domain, quantizing the coefficents according to some requirements, and then encoding it with some general-purpose compression method. I would argue that this does describe an algorithm, or rather a very large set of algorithms with different choices of the implementation details left unspecified.

You didn't answer my point about bubblesort. If you define a software patent as one that cannot possibly be implemented except with software, do such patents actually exist? – Smyth\talk 12:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This patent (5,579,430) is a little more complex, as it also includes a kind of entropy coding (a VLC), some stuff about synchronisation, code tables and gain. As you noticed, this could be interpreted as a large set of cascaded algorithms. But what is covered by this patent is not those individual algorithms, it's the whole process of using already known pieces, but in a specific order. This is called a process, not an algorithm. (btw it's nice that you took some time to start reading one of those patents).


 * Regarding software implementation and algorithms, it's clear that an algorithm is not something that can only be implemented in software. But on the other hand, it's not because something can be implemented in software that it's automatically considered to be an algorithm as a whole, even if it might include some algorithms in some parts. Is a word processor an algorithm? I don't think so (but I agree that a word processor is not a process either)--Gabriel Bouvigne 13:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oscar Bonnello/Audicom
Bonello's reply

Sorry Gabriel if you are not involved with the MP3 organization. I imagine that because the address of your personal mail. About a reference to my name at MP3, I have explained to you that "MP3" word is for most of the people synonimous of data compression, then our system deserves a small space at the MP3 history. You agree with me (please see at the History tab of the MP3 story). You personally changed my words to adapt to your perception of my work. Have you changed your mind ? Please add a reference to my work in your own words, because your agreement is important for me. Best regards OscarJuan (talk) OscarJuan —Preceding comment was added at 03:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I stand by my position: this has to be acknowledged, and this has to be acknowledged in the proper place. Your specific contribution in this field is already mentionned within the broadcast automation, audio compression (data) and Audicom articles. (that last article has recently been saved from deletion: Articles_for_deletion/Audicom)
 * The MP3 article should not become a place to mention everything related to audio compression, but should be what the title says: an article about MP3. --Gabriel Bouvigne (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: OscarJuan
He does seem to be ignoring the rules even though I spent a good deal of time teaching him what is permissible and what is not. If some admin who is up my ass right now with some BS from the past saw what OscarJuan is doing, I wonder what he would call him. Jrod2 (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Lame ui example 2.png
Thanks for uploading File:Lame ui example 2.png I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 00:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just sent a mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, in order to state that I am the copyright holder. --Gabriel Bouvigne (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Lame ui example 2.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lame ui example 2.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)