On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Dinesh Nair wrote: > > On 10/09/05 04:49 Kevin P. Fleming said the following: > > An original Asterisk distribution plus patches is still called Asterisk, > > since it is the source code that was distributed by the owner of the > > Asterisk trademark. > > ok, this clears freebsd's asterisk port then, since in that mechanism the > original asterisk source is downloaded before the freebsd specific patches > are applied to it. it's good that someone from digium has clarified this. > > > If you modify the code and distribute it, you cannot call it Asterisk, > > since you are not the trademark owner. Once the name 'Asterisk' is not > > applicable to the source code, the GPL exceptions that Digium has > > do bear with me as i (and all of use here, i hope) try to understand this. > > after the original asterisk source is untarred, and the freebsd specific > patches are applied to it, it ceases to be Asterisk(tm), correct ? since > the compilation and linking with openh323/openssl happens after it > ceases to be Asterisk(tm), then how does this make the freebsd asterisk > port GPL-legal ? It is *legal*, but unless it has been "blessed" by Digium, you cannot *redistribute* the binaries that may be linked with OpenH323/OpenSSL or any other GPL-incompatible software.
-alex _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz