On 10/09/05 06:41 Kevin P. Fleming said the following:
I think we're missing a major point here: the use of the trademark
applies to the source code, not the binaries you make from it. I don't
absolutely, i was never confused about this.
We are talking only about distributing substantively modified source
code, calling it 'Asterisk', and also taking advantage of the license
exceptions to then distribute the binaries linked against non-GPL
libraries.
which is exactly the situation we're talking about. let's use an example,
1. independent integrator downloads source from www.asterisk.org
2. integrator downloads bristuff/spandsp patches and applies them
3. integrator compiles resulting source with chan_h323.so included
4. integrator installs binaries (and sources) on hardware (w/ digium cards)
5. integrator sells whole hardware+software bundle to customer
distribution has happened in step 5. if the sources were not given, then
the GPL would be violated, so obviously they need to be.
now, given digium's waiver for openh323 and the use of the trademark
Asterisk(tm), is the above licence-compliant ?
(it's not violated the openh323 nor the openssl licenses which are, as you
say, "more free")
Obviously, I am not a lawyer, but I'd say that very few
situations fall into that category, but if they do, they should talk to
i'd think that the scenario i painted above is quite common today, with
independent integrators packaging systems for their customers. many of
these independent integrators are also digium customers for the TDM and
TE4XXP cards. if asterisk+bristuff/spandsp+openh323 cannot be distributed
in this way to customers, then a compelling reason to utilize TDM or TE4XXP
cards over those from dialogics or NMS would vanish.
(using spandsp for it's MFC/R2 capability and then to bridge the call over
H.323 would be fairly common in asia where MFC/R2 trunks are abundant)
as for speaking to a lawyer, i think that many of those technically
inclined would find it a lot cheaper economically to compile chan_woomera
into asterisk than paying some flake in a suit.
There is no 'move' here. Nothing has changed, we are just talking about
the situation as it exists today and trying to clarify the licensing
terms associated with the Asterisk trademark :-)
true, it wasnt something new, but the openpbx issue and this thread has
shed new light on it. at the core of it, it may have been better to have
/not/ used openh323 to begin with and thus remove the need for the waiver
and avoided the situation now.
perhaps a rewrite of a GPLed H.323 stack is in order, then this whole thing
will go away.
i know this would be a long shot, but it would be even better if digium
were to /not/ call the GPLed version of the source Asterisk(tm), thus
obliviating the trademark issue while still giving a waiver for linking in
openh323. digium could adopt what sun is doing and calling the commercial
version staroffice while calling the open source version openoffice. ditto
for netscape and mozilla in the past.
this may cause some rebranding issues for the open source project though,
but nothing which would be too insurmountable given a proper transition
period.
--
Regards, /\_/\ "All dogs go to heaven."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (0 0) http://www.alphaque.com/
+==========================----oOO--(_)--OOo----==========================+
| for a in past present future; do |
| for b in clients employers associates relatives neighbours pets; do |
| echo "The opinions here in no way reflect the opinions of my $a $b." |
| done; done |
+=========================================================================+
_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
