On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 01:08 -0500, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: > I am offering, in my official capacity, a possible extension to the > LICENSE file that would more clearly indicate the circumstances under > which the Asterisk trademark could be used or not used. Since I posted > that message, I have realized that any changes in that direction would > have to be even more 'complete' than what I proposed, so I will work > with our licensing manager and others to come up with something that is > in everyone's best interests. > God bless estoppel :)
> We certainly do not want to place restrictions on 'bundling' of Asterisk > into distributions or in other forms where the intent is that the end > product will still be 'Asterisk', but at the same time we need to > protect (as you already pointed out in another response) our trademark > and the license exceptions associated with it. I wouldnt imagine that you would, that kinda goes against making it open source in the first place. This is one of the problems with making restrictions in a license, it becomes very murky very quickly. Especially when dealing with a global marketplace. On a side note but vaguely related to this (licensing in general) does digium charge EU patrons for the g.729 codec? I understand that digium is in the US and that it can cause them problems if they dont charge, however there is no legal requirement for anyone in the EU currently to pay to use the codec, providing they can get it in the first place. Just a side thing that popped in my head as I was writing the earlier parts of this email. -- Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel UK +44 870 340 4605 Germany +49 801 777 555 3402 US +1 360 207 0479 or +1 516 687 5200 FreeWorldDialup: 635378
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
