On 10/8/05, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
Once you redistribute your fork it's no longer asterisk, and therefore the GPL exceptions that Digium granted to asterisk do not apply to your fork anymore. And since only the copyright holder has the right to grant exceptions, you are left unable to link Openssl and Openh323 into your fork. Any fork of a GPL project is very limited because any code you carry over has to be strictly GPL and cannot be changed, even to allow linking in of non gpl software.
Chris
_______________________________________________ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
