Dinesh Nair wrote:
On 10/09/05 04:07 Jeremy McNamara said the following:
It very clearly states in the README in the Asterisk source TLD:
Specific permission is also granted to OpenSSL and OpenH323 to link
with Asterisk.
LINK WITH ASTERISK - A fork is not asterisk.
i'm failing to understand this. person A downloads asterisk from
www.asterisk.org, links in open{ssl,h323} and this is ok.
person B downloads asterisk from www.asterisk.org, modifies some GPLed
asterisk code, links in open{ssl,h323} and distributes sources to the
whole shebang (including the modifications) , and this is not ok ?
i dont think this is the way the GPL and the linking waiver works, but
then IANAL either.
You raised the same question I did in another post.
The fallacy being promoted here is that "A fork is not asterisk"
A fork is asterisk with modifications. If I change one character of the
source I have the equivalent of a fork as far as licensing and legal
issues are concerned. If I start a community project based on my
one-character change it is called a fork.
I am running 3 types of asterisk on test sytems. I have it locally
compiled. I have it installed from official debian packages. I have it
installed from xorcom.com debian packages. All 3 are modifications to
"Official Asterisk". So I really have 3 forks of asterisk running on my
systems.
Anyway, GPL does not grant perpetual dictatorship. The Digium folks know
that. You notice they are not threatening anyone here.
_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
