In our last exciting episode, Kevin Walsh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: > Perhaps you should have read my article before rushing to respond. > If you did then you'd notice the "as allowed by the stupid BSD license" > part.
Okay, then I suppose my question is, if it is allowed, why do you care? Who is actually being hurt here? > Perhaps you'd be happy to see Asterisk released under a BSD license, > rather than the GPL. Perhaps you'd also be happy to see a "Microsoft > PBX" with "embrace and extend" features and a future defacto standard > closed-source MS-IAX protocol. The GPL prevents this and thereby > protects software freedom, the BSD license would not. How has either case diminished the Asterisk project, or its authors, in any way? In what way is the software "freer" than it would be under any other open source license? The code is still there, you are free to use it, nobody can lock it away and prevent you from using it. You still have the code. Who says that this mythical MS-IAX solution would become a future de facto standard? Your argument is weak. Let products stand on their own, or do you perhaps believe that Asterisk could not stand on its own merit? -- Jason T. Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.jtn.cx/~jtn/ BOFH Extraordiaire & Sysadmin Ombudsman GPG key 0xFF676C9E GPG key fingerprint = 6272 5482 EDDD D0A3 FED2 262A FABB 599D FF67 6C9E disclaimer: My opinions are my own. Don't bother my employer about them.
pgprbzIXCOCdH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
