[Asterisk-biz] Uniden 1868P

[CM Rahman]

HI,

Uniden 1868P is packet 8 compatable, is it compatable with asterisk? 
Anybody know about this?


Thanks

CM

___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Brian West]

One exists already its called ooh323 by objsys.  That's the driver in
asterisk-addons.  This isn't an issue with the Woomera interface we are
using.

Thanks,
Brian



On 10/8/05 6:40 PM, "Bruce Ferrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Dinesh Nair wrote:
> 
> -- >8 snippage 8< --
> 
>> 
>> perhaps a rewrite of a GPLed H.323 stack is in order, then this whole
>> thing will go away.
>> 
> 
> That would be a not very fun thing to do...  First you have to do a
> GPL'd ASN1 compiler.  I tried once a few years back.  My head STILL hurts!
> ___
> Asterisk-Biz mailing list
> Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz


___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Greg Boehnlein]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

[snip]

> releasing binaries containing asterisk. Yes, it is inconvenient. So work
> around it, via woomera/openh323 or other things that do not infringe on
> copyrights of authors.

Judging from who is involved w/ it, and the fact that it pretty much says 
so in the roadmap, I believe that they intend to use Woomera and OpenH323 
as well as a completely open SIP stack. Via Woomera, it is possible to do 
IAX2 + H323 + SIP through a single driver, so it isn't a whole lot of 
work. As a matter of fact, that code already existst from Anthem's 
chan_woomera.

I also believe this will be a waste of time, but hey.. people have the 
right to spend their time as they see fit.

-- 
Vice President of N2Net, a New Age Consulting Service, Inc. Company
 http://www.n2net.net Where everything clicks into place!
 KP-216-121-ST



___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Bruce Ferrell]

Dinesh Nair wrote:

   -- >8 snippage 8< --



perhaps a rewrite of a GPLed H.323 stack is in order, then this whole 
thing will go away.




That would be a not very fun thing to do...  First you have to do a 
GPL'd ASN1 compiler.  I tried once a few years back.  My head STILL hurts!

___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

[Asterisk-biz] 200 germany and 200 china DID/ DDI wanted

[Rehan Ahmed AllahWala - Super Technologies I]

Hello,

We are looking for

200 germany and 200 china did wanted

In Exchange with usa or uk did numbers.

If you have any other countries, do shoot me an email

Rehan

Super Technologies Inc., Pensacola, Florida
http://www.supertec.com - Technologies from tomorrow, TODAY!
http://www.VirtualPhoneLine.com - Get A US, UK, EU Number, Forward it to
any  number in the world instantly.
http://www.PhoneOpia.com - SIP Based OPEN Phone Services.
http://www.MySuperPhone.com - The NEXT Generation of Telephone.
Http://www.ip-pabx.com - One World, One Number, One Pabx, All Hosted.
Http://www.superPBX.net - One World, One Number, One Pabx, Physical.
http://www.didX.org - We will sell all your DID stock for you.


___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Dinesh Nair]

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

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Kevin P. Fleming]

Dinesh Nair wrote:

i understand digium's need to revenue protect ABE, but if it's coming to 
a point where a distribution of asterisk+bristuff(or anything else 
deemed significant)+openh323 is barred, then it would impact independent 
consultants who preinstall/preconfigure asterisk (with full source 
provided) for their customers while still purchasing FXO/FXS/E1/T1 cards 
from digium.


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 
believe anyone has any claim to say that a particular binary is not able 
to be called 'Asterisk' because it was not made in the prescribed fashion.


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. 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 
their own counsel to see what their exposure may be.


i think this move will hurt digium in the long run. one good thing about 
an open source project is that with the many independent software 
developers around the world, we can make modifications and improvements 
to the software for our customers and at the same time contributing the 
code back to make sure that others get the same improvements.


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 :-)

___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Dinesh Nair]

On 10/09/05 05:56 Kevin P. Fleming said the following:
the trademark. This would not allow (for example) bundling in major 
changes such as 'bristuff', but would allow for file locations to be 
changed, permissions modification, that sort of thing, designed for 
compatibility with the platform it's being built for.


this is beginning to sound fairly restrictive.

i understand digium's need to revenue protect ABE, but if it's coming to a 
point where a distribution of asterisk+bristuff(or anything else deemed 
significant)+openh323 is barred, then it would impact independent 
consultants who preinstall/preconfigure asterisk (with full source 
provided) for their customers while still purchasing FXO/FXS/E1/T1 cards 
from digium.


i think this move will hurt digium in the long run. one good thing about an 
open source project is that with the many independent software developers 
around the world, we can make modifications and improvements to the 
software for our customers and at the same time contributing the code back 
to make sure that others get the same improvements.


while the disclaimer and patch mechanism of Mantis allows this, what would 
happen if one of the patches/modifications are not committed into CVS and 
thus not part of Asterisk(tm) ? this would prevent even the independent 
developer who wrote the patch from distributing a patched version of 
asterisk together with openh323 to a customer with TE4XXP cards. this would 
severly impact customer service, especially if the patch was a bug fix. 
being honest, it would be hard to recommend asterisk or digium cards to a 
customer if it is going to hamper someone's ability to properly support 
that customer.


i think what we all need to do is to put this openpbx thing behind us and 
go back to developing good software.


--
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

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Dinesh Nair]

On 10/09/05 05:44 Kevin P. Fleming said the following:
There is no 'legality', there is only license conformance or 
non-conformance. Non-conformance to the license exposes you to action 


apologies for using the wrong terminology.

All of this is only relevant (as another poster has posted) to 
redistribution; making modifications on your own system and using the 
results does not in itself violate the GPL. It may, however, violate the 


which is what some people do, i.e. selling preinstalled and preconfigured 
asterisk on freebsd packaged solutions (with server hardware and digium 
TE4XXP cards to boot) to customers and providing the source to it.


It would be highly counter-productive for Digium (or any other Asterisk 
copyright holders, of which there are a large number) to take action 
against a Linux distribution vendor, FreeBSD or any other 'packager' for 
using the Asterisk trademark on binaries they distribute to their users. 


it would, but then when a vacuum exists in this scenario, one would be 
better to err on the side of caution and not do anything which would put it 
in a grey area and open for interpretation. my stance on this would be 
better to be safe than sorry and to make absolutely 100% sure that no 
license non-compliance has happened.


i sincerely hope that digium clears this licensing/trademark mess up 
soonest. otherwise, the use of openh323/openssl with a modified/patched 
asterisk would be in question even if the terms of the GPL were adhered to.


This is similar to the situation between RedHat and CentOS (and the 
other RHEL clones)... they can distribute binaries made from the 
identical source code, but they cannot call it 'RedHat ' 
without RedHat's permission, since that is a trademark.


that's a little different. in that scenario, no waivers are in place. so 
while one cant call it Redhat, one can redistribute the software provided 
that the GPL is adherred to.


in the asterisk scenario, the special waiver given for openh323 and openssl 
is what confuses the matter. a modified but GPL-compliant asterisk would 
not be able to be distributed if it was linked to openh323.


--
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

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Jean-Michel Hiver]

'illegal' is the wrong term, please stop using it. There is no 
legality involved.


Yes you are right - sorry about this approximation.

Whether you are allowed to do that or not depends on the language in 
the OpenH.323 license; if it does not allow its libraries to be linked 
with GPL software (for whatever reason), then you do not have the 
right to do that, regardless of whether you distribute the result or not.


Yes, I do agree. So basically you have the right to link two programs as 
long as each licenses give you, as an end-user, the right to link the 
program. We're going in circles :)


Now, /I/ don't think distributing a build script to do just that is 
infrigement. This doesn't seem to be Alex's case.



In this case, since the licenses for OpenSSL and OpenH.323 are "more 
free" than the GPL, I don't think that an end-user doing this linking 
is violating the license of either Asterisk or the add-on package.


Agreed. Hence, if OpenPBX wanted to distribute a 'contrib' directory 
with some scripts that can be used by the end user to easily download 
and link these packages to their OpenPBX, I don't think they would be 
doing any evil. And this kind of freedom is a /good/ thing.


Just like it would be right for Asterisk to do exactly that. Including 
for bristuff patches *ahem* ;-)


Cheers,
Jean-Michel.

___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Kevin P. Fleming]

Jean-Michel Hiver wrote:

I, as a user, am perfectly legit when I link Asterisk and Open H323. I 
don't think anybody will disagree with that. Then how can distributing a 
build shell script which serves that *completely legal* purpose be 
deemed illegal? Just because it pisses a few off? Come on...


'illegal' is the wrong term, please stop using it. There is no legality 
involved.


Whether you are allowed to do that or not depends on the language in the 
OpenH.323 license; if it does not allow its libraries to be linked with 
GPL software (for whatever reason), then you do not have the right to do 
that, regardless of whether you distribute the result or not.


In this case, since the licenses for OpenSSL and OpenH.323 are "more 
free" than the GPL, I don't think that an end-user doing this linking is 
violating the license of either Asterisk or the add-on package.

___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Jean-Michel Hiver]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :


On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Jean-Michel Hiver wrote:

 


I don't see how making it easier for people to do something that they
are legally allowed to do anyway can be considered illegal. Not anymore
than make, automake, twig, portage, or other tools that are used for
linking.
   


Unfortunately courts, in US, may take a dim view of that. (Please see all
the p2p software lawsuits - they all have been accused, and found liable,
of contributory copyright infringement). When the "most frequently used"  
purpose of a piece of software is to enable copyright infringement, the 
distributor of such software may be found liable.
 

Yes but there is /no copyright infringement/ performed by linking 
asterisk to a piece of GPL software (Asterisk) to a piece of MPL 
software (Open H323)!




That is all fairly grey area. As in, you may wish it wasn't the case, and 
P2P software remained legal to distribute, but it isn't. Whether this can 
be applied to such scripts as you described is questionable. 
 


I think comparison with P2P is largely out of scope. See above.


Why not to stop trying to find ways around GPL, and instead, write 
something useful that would respect the rights of Digium and other 
contributors?
 

I don't think it's "finding ways around the GPL" at all. The GPL is 
/remarkably clear/ about what you can and cannot do and I think people 
should stick to that rather than interpret it the way they see fit. The 
most laughable example was MySQL A.B. "own interpretation of the GPL" 
where by "if your product needs mysql then it's linked to MySQL and you 
need a license".


Using such a popular licensing model and then saying "oh no no, you 
can't do that, not fair" just doesn't cut it. As long as you respect the 
terms of the licenses of the software you use / link / etc, you /are/ 
respecting the rights of Digium and other contributors.


I, as a user, am perfectly legit when I link Asterisk and Open H323. I 
don't think anybody will disagree with that. Then how can distributing a 
build shell script which serves that *completely legal* purpose be 
deemed illegal? Just because it pisses a few off? Come on...


Cheers,
Jean-Michel.

___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Dinesh Nair]

On 10/09/05 05:45 [EMAIL PROTECTED] said the following:
Why not to stop trying to find ways around GPL, and instead, write 
something useful that would respect the rights of Digium and other 
contributors?


many are not trying to find ways around the GPL but rather to clarify their 
usage/distribution of a GPLed program with sources. the manner in which 
freebsd downloads, patches and compiles asterisk and the digium GPL waiver 
to openssl/openh323 would seem that distributing asterisk (with sources) on 
a freebsd system is in violation.


somehow this just seems morally wrong for a licensing term to bar an 
operating system, and an open source one at that !


--
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

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Kevin P. Fleming]

Dinesh Nair wrote:

in this instance, it definitely would be safer for the freebsd folk to 
use chan_woomera to provide h.323 functionality on asterisk as this is a 
legal quagmire an open source project (freebsd in this case) cant get 
mired in.


I have already responded to most of this in my last post, but I will add 
one more point: we could certainly add a clause to the LICENSE file that 
gave distributions the right to make non-substantial modifications to 
the source code for compatibility/etc. without losing the ability to use 
the trademark. This would not allow (for example) bundling in major 
changes such as 'bristuff', but would allow for file locations to be 
changed, permissions modification, that sort of thing, designed for 
compatibility with the platform it's being built for.


Would that alleviate your concerns? If so, I'll run it past the relevant 
people at Digium (and our legal counsel), so it would probably not be 
something we could do until after Astricon next week, but I'd be happy 
to do it.

___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Dinesh Nair]

On 10/09/05 05:37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] said the following:
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. 


which is exactly the sort of clarification we need from digium. freebsd 
does distribute precompiled packages as well, obviously with the freebsd 
specific patches and openh323 compiled in.


if this is the case, then this has seriously impacted the ability for 
freebsd to provide packages/ports of asterisk on that operating system.


in this instance, it definitely would be safer for the freebsd folk to use 
chan_woomera to provide h.323 functionality on asterisk as this is a legal 
quagmire an open source project (freebsd in this case) cant get mired in.


personally, i am sad that the distribution of asterisk on an open source 
operating system is impacted by this.


--
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

[Asterisk-biz] Polycom PVX??

[Alejandro Lengua]

Do you think this voip softphone could be used
with asterisk? For what I have read it is mostly H.323...

http://www.polycom.com/products_services/1,,pw-7953,FF.html

--

Slds,  Alejandro Lengua
___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Kevin P. Fleming]

Dinesh Nair wrote:

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 ?


There is no 'legality', there is only license conformance or 
non-conformance. Non-conformance to the license exposes you to action 
from the copyright holder(s), should they choose to take any. There is 
no 'illegal' or 'legal' involved.


All of this is only relevant (as another poster has posted) to 
redistribution; making modifications on your own system and using the 
results does not in itself violate the GPL. It may, however, violate the 
license of other software that you link it with, so if you link it with 
OpenH.323 then you may have violated the license under which you 
received that software.


If you distribute those binaries linked against license-incompatible, 
then you are violating the terms of the GPL under which you received the 
source code. The copyright holder(s) can then choose to take action to 
stop you from distributing the infringing items, or sue you for damages. 
They can also choose to do nothing.


It would be highly counter-productive for Digium (or any other Asterisk 
copyright holders, of which there are a large number) to take action 
against a Linux distribution vendor, FreeBSD or any other 'packager' for 
using the Asterisk trademark on binaries they distribute to their users. 
However, that does not mean we cannot take action against any other 
parties that distribute modified source code (or binaries made from 
such) and call it 'Asterisk', if we deem it prudent to do so.


This is similar to the situation between RedHat and CentOS (and the 
other RHEL clones)... they can distribute binaries made from the 
identical source code, but they cannot call it 'RedHat ' 
without RedHat's permission, since that is a trademark.

___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[alex]

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Jean-Michel Hiver wrote:

> I don't see how making it easier for people to do something that they
> are legally allowed to do anyway can be considered illegal. Not anymore
> than make, automake, twig, portage, or other tools that are used for
> linking.
Unfortunately courts, in US, may take a dim view of that. (Please see all
the p2p software lawsuits - they all have been accused, and found liable,
of contributory copyright infringement). When the "most frequently used"  
purpose of a piece of software is to enable copyright infringement, the 
distributor of such software may be found liable.

> In fact this was one of the reason for which WineX (nowadays called
> Cedega) threatened to change their license and remove CVS access: it was
> too easy to build using gentoo portage... but in no way illegal.
That is all fairly grey area. As in, you may wish it wasn't the case, and 
P2P software remained legal to distribute, but it isn't. Whether this can 
be applied to such scripts as you described is questionable. 

Why not to stop trying to find ways around GPL, and instead, write 
something useful that would respect the rights of Digium and other 
contributors?

-alex

___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[alex]

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

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Jean-Michel Hiver]

This is complete nonsense. The end user can do /whatever he likes/ with
GPL software, /including linking it with commercial software/. The GPL
restrictions only apply to /redistribution rights/.
   


Let's not be pedantic, you know what jerjer meant.
 

No, I think a lot of people make this mistake about the GPL so I felt it 
was necessary to remind it.




So openpbx could release a couple of handy scripts so that end users can
easily link the software with whatever they like and there would be no
infringement.
   


That's a very slippery slope, possibly contributory copyright
infringement.
 

Absolutely not. A script that can be used to link, say, OpenH323 to 
OpenPBX is not anymore infringing than, say, GCC.


I don't see how making it easier for people to do something that they 
are legally allowed to do anyway can be considered illegal. Not anymore 
than make, automake, twig, portage, or other tools that are used for 
linking.


In fact this was one of the reason for which WineX (nowadays called 
Cedega) threatened to change their license and remove CVS access: it was 
too easy to build using gentoo portage... but in no way illegal.


Cheers,
Jean-Michel.

___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Dinesh Nair]

On 10/09/05 04:59 Paul said the following:
I am running 3 types of asterisk on test sytems. I have it locally 
compiled. I have it installed from official debian packages. I have it 
installed from xorcom.com debian packages. All 3 are modifications to 


exactly. asterisk is in the freebsd ports system, and is built locally 
(with openh323 linked in) on someone's system after freebsd-specific 
patches are applied to it. this in itself is a very niche fork of asterisk, 
and if jeremy is right then every freebsd system which has asterisk built 
from ports is illegitimate.


--
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

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Dinesh Nair]

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 ?


this is some cause for concern, since a large number of us are using 
asterisk on freebsd and are building it from the ports.


--
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

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Jean-Michel Hiver]

Brian West a écrit :


On 10/8/05 3:51 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 

Brian, 


It woulda been very helpful for you to identify your association with
openpbx earlier, so they don't look just like bunch of nobodies ;)
   



I would have been more involved in this discussion if I were on the lists
when it started but I have just now rejoined this list to post our views on
the subject.
 

May I suggest that you change "The truly open source PBX" to "A truly 
open source PBX", since your pickup line is unnecessarily provocative 
towards Digium. Many on this list (including me) understand and respect 
their decision to keep all copyright on Asterisk codebase. It's not like 
their PBX isn't "truly opensource" - of course it is!


Other than that, best luck with your project! I hope this competition 
makes both projects more featurefull and stable quicker.


___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[snacktime]

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 thesource I have the equivalent of a fork as far as licensing and legal
issues are concerned. If I start a community project based on myone-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

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[alex]

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Jean-Michel Hiver wrote:

> >> The patent owners would view locally compiled GPL asterisk and a GPL
> >> fork of asterisk equally. If they permit me to buy codec licenses
> >> from digium and use them with an asterisk that I have modified there
> >> is no reason to prevent me from doing the same with a fork.
> >
> > You do not understand.  Only the copyright holder of the GPL software
> > can allow non-gpl software to link with their GPL Licensed software.
> 
> This is complete nonsense. The end user can do /whatever he likes/ with
> GPL software, /including linking it with commercial software/. The GPL
> restrictions only apply to /redistribution rights/.
Let's not be pedantic, you know what jerjer meant.

> So openpbx could release a couple of handy scripts so that end users can
> easily link the software with whatever they like and there would be no
> infringement.
That's a very slippery slope, possibly contributory copyright
infringement.


-alex

___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Jean-Michel Hiver]

Jeremy McNamara a écrit :


Paul wrote:

The patent owners would view locally compiled GPL asterisk and a GPL 
fork of asterisk equally. If they permit me to buy codec licenses 
from digium and use them with an asterisk that I have modified there 
is no reason to prevent me from doing the same with a fork.





You do not understand.  Only the copyright holder of the GPL software 
can allow non-gpl software to link with their GPL Licensed software.


This is complete nonsense. The end user can do /whatever he likes/ with 
GPL software, /including linking it with commercial software/. The GPL 
restrictions only apply to /redistribution rights/.


So openpbx could release a couple of handy scripts so that end users can 
easily link the software with whatever they like and there would be no 
infringement.


Cheers,
Jean-Michel.

___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Paul]

Kevin P. Fleming wrote:


Paul wrote:

The question that raises is: How does a GPL fork differ enough to 
lose those waivers? Suppose I write several thousand lines of GPL 
patches to a GPL-released asterisk. I put the patch set and the 
original asterisk tarball on my ftp/http servers. I don't see much 
difference between that and a forked project as far as license issues 
go.



There is a huge difference.

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.


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 
granted do not apply, since they are granted to 'Asterisk', not to 
'the collection of source files known as Asterisk'. It's legal 
semantics, but it's very important legal semantics :-)


The debian way is to distribute the upstream source tarball and 
patchset. From what you are saying a linux distro that only distributes 
a tarball of the patched source would not be able to call the package 
asterisk. That sounds acceptable to me. What about the ready-to-run 
binary packages I got from debian? Those are called asterisk.


So if put copies of official asterisk source tarballs out along with 
patch files that can be called asterisk. So what if I also offer 
binaries for different distros. Seems to me I would get the same rights 
that debian and fedora projects get.


My point is that it could be considered a fork but the means of 
distribution allows it to be called a modified asterisk.


___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Jean-Michel Hiver]

Jeremy McNamara a écrit :


smbPBX wrote:


Any thought from the business comminity?




Furthermore, I better not see any H.323, G.729 or OpenSSL


Why not OpenSSL? Isn't that GPL'ed?


___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Paul]

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.


I am running 3 types of asterisk on test sytems. I have it locally 
compiled. I have it installed from official debian packages. I have it 
installed from xorcom.com debian packages. All 3 are modifications to 
"Official Asterisk". So I really have 3 forks of asterisk running on my 
systems.


Anyway, GPL does not grant perpetual dictatorship. The Digium folks know 
that. You notice they are not threatening anyone here.


___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Brian West]

On 10/8/05 3:51 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Brian, 
> 
> It woulda been very helpful for you to identify your association with
> openpbx earlier, so they don't look just like bunch of nobodies ;)

I would have been more involved in this discussion if I were on the lists
when it started but I have just now rejoined this list to post our views on
the subject.
 
> Also, it would have been a while lot helpful if others associated with
> this project not make inflammatory posts that appear to state your project
> doesn't care about IP rights of others. That's not the best way to gain
> community goodwill...

I hope we can feed changes back to the Asterisk tree if they will be
accepted, But we won't spend weeks waiting for acceptance of patches we push
upstream from us.  We'll post them if people want to use them then fine.

Thanks,
Brian West
OpenPBX.org


___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Kevin P. Fleming]

Paul wrote:

The question that raises is: How does a GPL fork differ enough to lose 
those waivers? Suppose I write several thousand lines of GPL patches to 
a GPL-released asterisk. I put the patch set and the original asterisk 
tarball on my ftp/http servers. I don't see much difference between that 
and a forked project as far as license issues go.


There is a huge difference.

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.


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 
granted do not apply, since they are granted to 'Asterisk', not to 'the 
collection of source files known as Asterisk'. It's legal semantics, but 
it's very important legal semantics :-)

___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[alex]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Brian West wrote:

> On 10/8/05 3:30 PM, "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Jeremy, I fully understand your explanation.
> > 
> > The question that raises is: How does a GPL fork differ enough to lose
> > those waivers? Suppose I write several thousand lines of GPL patches
> > to a GPL-released asterisk. I put the patch set and the original
> > asterisk tarball on my ftp/http servers. I don't see much difference
> > between that and a forked project as far as license issues go.
> 
> His argument is invalid in the first place.  The h.323 interface will be
> done via Woomera as will the SS7 interface
> (www.ss7box.com/asterisk.html).
> 
> As for OpenSSL it is said very clearly on the website its fine to use if
> your OS or Distribution includes the library in the base.  Most Linux
> and BSD's these days do.  I think their are very few exceptions to that
> rule.
> 
> On to G.729, this can be done two ways.  The first way is to use
> hardware with a socket interface (which is on its way already) or use a
> socket interface to a software process to perform the same thing.  Both
> are perfectly valid and legal under the GPL.
> 
> So we have thought about this.  Anyone reading this now has the bottom
> line story on what is going on and our view of this matter.
Brian, 

It woulda been very helpful for you to identify your association with 
openpbx earlier, so they don't look just like bunch of nobodies ;)

Also, it would have been a while lot helpful if others associated with
this project not make inflammatory posts that appear to state your project
doesn't care about IP rights of others. That's not the best way to gain
community goodwill...

-alex



___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Kevin P. Fleming]

Dinesh Nair wrote:

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 ?


That modified distribution cannot be called 'Asterisk', since Asterisk 
is a trademark owned by Digium and only usable for distributions of 
source code that we produce. Once the distribution is no longer called 
'Asterisk', the GPL exceptions no longer apply.

___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Brian West]

Please review my previous post on this matter.  We have already made plans
for all of the provisions outlined in my response.

/b

> Even if they finally get it, do you think they really care? Sounds to me like
> they are perfectly fine with violating a license if they don't agree with it,
> and think they can get away with it.
> 
> What gets me is that they are completely blinded to the fact that any smart
> business person after reading this thread will now avoid them like the plague.
> 
> The good thing is you don't have to sue them, they will simply self destruct.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Asterisk-Biz mailing list
> Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz



___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Brian West]

On 10/8/05 3:30 PM, "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Jeremy, I fully understand your explanation.
> 
> The question that raises is: How does a GPL fork differ enough to lose
> those waivers? Suppose I write several thousand lines of GPL patches to
> a GPL-released asterisk. I put the patch set and the original asterisk
> tarball on my ftp/http servers. I don't see much difference between that
> and a forked project as far as license issues go.

His argument is invalid in the first place.  The h.323 interface will be
done via Woomera as will the SS7 interface (www.ss7box.com/asterisk.html).

As for OpenSSL it is said very clearly on the website its fine to use if
your OS or Distribution includes the library in the base.  Most Linux and
BSD's these days do.  I think their are very few exceptions to that rule.

On to G.729, this can be done two ways.  The first way is to use hardware
with a socket interface (which is on its way already) or use a socket
interface to a software process to perform the same thing.  Both are
perfectly valid and legal under the GPL.

So we have thought about this.  Anyone reading this now has the bottom line
story on what is going on and our view of this matter.

Thanks,
Brian West
OpenPBX.org


___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Dinesh Nair]

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.


--
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

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[snacktime]

On 10/8/05, Jeremy McNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul wrote:> The patent owners would view locally compiled GPL asterisk and a GPL> fork of asterisk equally. If they permit me to buy codec licenses from> digium and use them with an asterisk that I have modified there is no
> reason to prevent me from doing the same with a fork.You do not understand.  Only the copyright holder of the GPL softwarecan allow non-gpl software to link with their GPL Licensed software.
Open H.323, Open SSL and G.729 are not GPL licensed, hence only Digiumcan wave the GPL rights for those features to exist in Asterisk - Anyforked project does not have the right to grant such exceptions.


Even if they finally get it, do you think they really care? 
Sounds to me like they are perfectly fine with violating a license if
they don't agree with it, and think they can get away with it.

What gets me is that they are completely blinded to the fact that any
smart business person after reading this thread will now avoid them
like the plague.  

The good thing is you don't have to sue them, they will simply self destruct.

___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Dinesh Nair]

On 10/09/05 03:52 Jeremy McNamara said the following:
That shows how totally ignorant you are.   Open H.323, OpenSSL and G.729 
are not compatible with the GPL.  It has nothing to with who owns what.


so the glue bits in channels/chan_h323.c and channels/h323 are GPLed and 
are dynamically linked against the openH323 and pwlib libraries which works 
around the GPL's restrictions. is this correct ?


if so, couldnt the openpbx.org fellows use the same technique to get around 
the GPLed asterisk fork as well ?


--
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

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Paul]

Jeremy McNamara wrote:


Paul wrote:

The patent owners would view locally compiled GPL asterisk and a GPL 
fork of asterisk equally. If they permit me to buy codec licenses 
from digium and use them with an asterisk that I have modified there 
is no reason to prevent me from doing the same with a fork.





You do not understand.  Only the copyright holder of the GPL software 
can allow non-gpl software to link with their GPL Licensed software.


Open H.323, Open SSL and G.729 are not GPL licensed, hence only Digium 
can wave the GPL rights for those features to exist in Asterisk - Any 
forked project does not have the right to grant such exceptions.



Jeremy, I fully understand your explanation.

The question that raises is: How does a GPL fork differ enough to lose 
those waivers? Suppose I write several thousand lines of GPL patches to 
a GPL-released asterisk. I put the patch set and the original asterisk 
tarball on my ftp/http servers. I don't see much difference between that 
and a forked project as far as license issues go.


___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Jeremy McNamara]

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.


Jeremy McNamara
___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Jeremy McNamara]

Billy Huddleston wrote:


Jeremy, you go get a clue.



Your own paste proves me right:

or state explicitly that  "This program is released under the GPL with 
the additional exemption that compiling, linking, and/or using OpenSSL 
is allowed."



Any fork cannot grant that exemption - only the copyright holder can.


Jeremy McNamara
___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Jeremy McNamara]

Paul wrote:

The patent owners would view locally compiled GPL asterisk and a GPL 
fork of asterisk equally. If they permit me to buy codec licenses from 
digium and use them with an asterisk that I have modified there is no 
reason to prevent me from doing the same with a fork.




You do not understand.  Only the copyright holder of the GPL software 
can allow non-gpl software to link with their GPL Licensed software.


Open H.323, Open SSL and G.729 are not GPL licensed, hence only Digium 
can wave the GPL rights for those features to exist in Asterisk - Any 
forked project does not have the right to grant such exceptions.



Jeremy McNamara
___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Billy Huddleston]

Jeremy, you go get a clue.

http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2

Clearly states

2. Can I use OpenSSL with GPL software?



On many systems including the major Linux and BSD distributions, yes (the 
GPL does not place restrictions on using libraries that are part of the 
normal operating system distribution).
On other systems, the situation is less clear. Some GPL software copyright 
holders claim that you infringe on their rights if you use OpenSSL with 
their software on operating systems that don't normally include OpenSSL.


If you develop open source software that uses OpenSSL, you may find it 
useful to choose an other license than the GPL, or state explicitly that 
"This program is released under the GPL with the additional exemption that 
compiling, linking, and/or using OpenSSL is allowed." If you are using GPL 
software developed by others, you may want to ask the copyright holder for 
permission to use their software with OpenSSL.



- Original Message - 
From: "Jeremy McNamara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion" 


Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org



Peter Nixon wrote:

Well, given that you didn't design H323 (The ITU did) or SSL (Netscape did 
as far as I remember), and you don't own the patents to g.729 I would say 
that you are full of shit and don't have any say in the matter.


That shows how totally ignorant you are.   Open H.323, OpenSSL and G.729 
are not compatible with the GPL.  It has nothing to with who owns what.



Perhaps you need to have Rosenblatt and company READ the GPL to you.



Jeremy McNamara
___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz 


___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Paul]

Peter Nixon wrote:


On Saturday 08 October 2005 19:25, Jeremy McNamara wrote:
 


smbPBX wrote:
   


Any thought from the business comminity?
 


Furthermore, I better not see any H.323, G.729 or OpenSSL support in
this forked version or I will make it personal and sick the legal types
after whomever is responsible.
   



Well, given that you didn't design H323 (The ITU did) or SSL (Netscape did as 
far as I remember), and you don't own the patents to g.729 I would say that 
you are full of shit and don't have any say in the matter. Given that your 
chan_h323 code is full of bugs it didn't even make the cut for the fork 
(chan_skinny also). Any other code that you have in OpenPBX was released 
under the GPL and anyone anywhere is perfectly free to use it. (Most of it 
will probably be removed before too long in any case as we are trying to make 
OpenPBX stable...)


If you have any legal problems with any of the above please feel free to 
direct them to:


Rosenblatt & Company
Cizik Han Building
Kore Sehitleri Caddesi No. 33,
Zincirlikuyu, Istanbul, Turkey


 


I agree that the H323 and SSL issues are non-issues in the case of a fork.

If there is an valid issue with G.729, it applies to all of us using GPL 
binaries that are not generated by Digium.


The patent owners would view locally compiled GPL asterisk and a GPL 
fork of asterisk equally. If they permit me to buy codec licenses from 
digium and use them with an asterisk that I have modified there is no 
reason to prevent me from doing the same with a fork.


I recently was reading the policy changes at the G.729 site. I think 
those changes make it look like Digium is grandfathered into a license 
that would not be granted today.


___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Jeremy McNamara]

Peter Nixon wrote:

Well, given that you didn't design H323 (The ITU did) or SSL (Netscape did as 
far as I remember), and you don't own the patents to g.729 I would say that 
you are full of shit and don't have any say in the matter. 



That shows how totally ignorant you are.   Open H.323, OpenSSL and G.729 
are not compatible with the GPL.  It has nothing to with who owns what.



Perhaps you need to have Rosenblatt and company READ the GPL to you.



Jeremy McNamara
___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Webphone SIP

[Jon Carnes]

If your call agent is down and you want to do voice calls internally to
some of your support folks via your computer... that is exactly what
they asked for. I'm not a big skype fan, but hay, It's free and it
works. That's a big +2 if your call agent is down.

On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 13:15, Herman Webley wrote:
> > Skype.
> >   http://www.skype.com/
> > 
> 
> How in the world is skype an option for anything?
> 
> Best regards,
> Herman Webley
> 
> ___
> Asterisk-Biz mailing list
> Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Webphone SIP

[Herman Webley]

> Skype.
>   http://www.skype.com/
> 

How in the world is skype an option for anything?

Best regards,
Herman Webley

___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Peter Nixon]

On Saturday 08 October 2005 19:25, Jeremy McNamara wrote:
> smbPBX wrote:
> > Any thought from the business comminity?
>
> Furthermore, I better not see any H.323, G.729 or OpenSSL support in
> this forked version or I will make it personal and sick the legal types
> after whomever is responsible.

Well, given that you didn't design H323 (The ITU did) or SSL (Netscape did as 
far as I remember), and you don't own the patents to g.729 I would say that 
you are full of shit and don't have any say in the matter. Given that your 
chan_h323 code is full of bugs it didn't even make the cut for the fork 
(chan_skinny also). Any other code that you have in OpenPBX was released 
under the GPL and anyone anywhere is perfectly free to use it. (Most of it 
will probably be removed before too long in any case as we are trying to make 
OpenPBX stable...)

If you have any legal problems with any of the above please feel free to 
direct them to:

Rosenblatt & Company
Cizik Han Building
Kore Sehitleri Caddesi No. 33,
Zincirlikuyu, Istanbul, Turkey


-- 

Peter Nixon
http://www.peternixon.net/
PGP Key: http://www.peternixon.net/public.asc
___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[alex]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, William Waites wrote:

> On October 8, 2005 12:55, Jeremy McNamara wrote:
> > William Waites wrote:
> > >And if you insist on playing the "use IP as a big stick" game, you
> > >had
> > > better make damn sure that Asterisk is non-infringing in any way of
> > > anybody elses claims...
> >
> > If you have any substance to this claim, bring it.
> 
> Any such substance would best be brought in counter-suit if you (or
> Digium)  choses to harrass a fork with lawyers.
What the heck is wrong with you people? 

I blame the MTV generation for lack of respect for any kind of 
intellectual property, and the gradual slide from "oh, so I can download 
music for free" to "I can make money on someone's work without paying".

The copyright *is* what keeps the GPL software free. If you do not respect
copyright of the creators of Asterisk (and the licensing terms they
require), what do you respect? Why would anyone want to deal with you?  
Where will you stop? What is stopping you from releasing your own
"proprietary" openpbx, since you have made it abundantly clear you don't
care about GPL or copyrights of Digium and other contributors?

I will be the second in line (after jerjer :) to serve you (and your
hosting company) with DMCA notice if I see a binary that contains my
contributions and GPL-incompatible software, of whatever kind.

Respect for the laws is what keeps us from stealing, whether this is real
property or intellectual property. You might not like the fact that
licensing for H323/OpenSSL is not compatible with GPL - but it won't
change the fact. Now, the same copyright laws that prevent Microsoft from
releasing proprietary version of Asterisk are preventing you from
releasing binaries containing asterisk. Yes, it is inconvenient. So work
around it, via woomera/openh323 or other things that do not infringe on
copyrights of authors.

--
Alex Pilosov| DSL, Colocation, Hosting Services
President   | [EMAIL PROTECTED]877-PILOSOFT x601
Pilosoft, Inc.  | http://www.pilosoft.com


___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[William Waites]

On October 8, 2005 12:55, Jeremy McNamara wrote:
> William Waites wrote:
> >And if you insist on playing the "use IP as a big stick" game, you had
> > better make damn sure that Asterisk is non-infringing in any way of
> > anybody elses claims...
>
> If you have any substance to this claim, bring it.

Any such substance would best be brought in counter-suit if you (or Digium) 
choses to harrass a fork with lawyers.

-w
___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[William Lloyd]

Thankfully the world is bigger than US law and lawyers.

-bill

On 8-Oct-05, at 12:25 PM, Jeremy McNamara wrote:


smbPBX wrote:



Any thought from the business comminity?




Furthermore, I better not see any H.323, G.729 or OpenSSL support  
in this forked version or I will make it personal and sick the  
legal types after whomever is responsible.



Have a nice day,


Jeremy McNamara
___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz



___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Steve Totaro]

> On October 8, 2005 12:25, Jeremy McNamara wrote:
> >
> > Furthermore, I better not see any H.323, G.729 or OpenSSL support in
> > this forked version or I will make it personal and sick the legal types
> > after whomever is responsible.

>For the good of the community, please stop making childish threats 
> and play nicely for a change.

LMAO
___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Jeremy McNamara]

William Waites wrote:

And if you insist on playing the "use IP as a big stick" game, you had better 
make damn sure that Asterisk is non-infringing in any way of anybody elses 
claims...
 




If you have any substance to this claim, bring it.


Jeremy McNamara
___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[William Waites]

On October 8, 2005 12:25, Jeremy McNamara wrote:
> smbPBX wrote:
> > Any thought from the business comminity?
>
> Furthermore, I better not see any H.323, G.729 or OpenSSL support in
> this forked version or I will make it personal and sick the legal types
> after whomever is responsible.

I've been too busy lately to follow any of this. But just catching up on 
emails now, and seeing this note from you, Jeremy, well... All I can say is, 
I saw this coming, and said so several times, and was dismissed as a 
crackpot. For the good of the community, please stop making childish threats 
and play nicely for a change.

And if you insist on playing the "use IP as a big stick" game, you had better 
make damn sure that Asterisk is non-infringing in any way of anybody elses 
claims...

-w 
___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Jeremy McNamara]

Danny Froberg wrote:


Why?



Those, and possibly other features, can only exist because of the dual 
licensing nature of Asterisk.



Jeremy McNamara






Furthermore, I better not see any H.323, G.729 or OpenSSL support in 
this forked version or I will make it personal and sick the legal 
types after whomever is responsible.





___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Danny Froberg]

Why?

Jeremy McNamara wrote:

smbPBX wrote:


Any thought from the business comminity?




Furthermore, I better not see any H.323, G.729 or OpenSSL support in 
this forked version or I will make it personal and sick the legal types 
after whomever is responsible.



Have a nice day,


Jeremy McNamara

___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Jeremy McNamara]

smbPBX wrote:


Any thought from the business comminity?



Furthermore, I better not see any H.323, G.729 or OpenSSL support in 
this forked version or I will make it personal and sick the legal types 
after whomever is responsible.



Have a nice day,


Jeremy McNamara
___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Jeremy McNamara]

smbPBX wrote:


Any thought from the business comminity?




Its a serious waste of resources.   It will fail.


Jeremy McNamara
___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Digium G.729 codec modules updated

[Kevin P. Fleming]

Jean-Michel Hiver wrote:

Any chance to have g.729 hardware encoding on Digium boards one of these 
days?


You know we can't comment on potential future products :-)

That said, there is always a chance for anything to happen!
___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[stotaro]

I will use what works best for my customers and 
me.
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  smbPBX 
  To: asterisk-biz@lists.digium.com 
  
  Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 10:09 
  AM
  Subject: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - 
  OpenPBX.org
  On the heels of Astricon 05, I saw this thread on voipuser.org forumhttp://www.voipuser.org/forum_topic_3045.html.And 
  the news item on voip-info.org2005-10-04 - OpenPBX.org has emerged. A 
  new fork of Asterisk, without any dual licensing. Help 
  out!>From reading the thread, it appears that the founder, 
  mochouinard, is being a bit secretive or he just dosn't have the 
  answers!I saw joomla fork out from mambo - a VERY popular contenet 
  mamagement system but all the informatio was up and up. Allthough, I must sya 
  that the joomla fork was in the planning for a long time and many originla 
  developer team moved to joomla.Any thought from the business 
  comminity?-- Regards,smbPBX
  
  

  ___Asterisk-Biz mailing 
  listAsterisk-Biz@lists.digium.comhttp://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
  
  

  No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG 
  Anti-Virus.Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/124 - Release 
  Date: 10/7/2005
___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

[Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[smbPBX]

On the heels of Astricon 05, I saw this thread on voipuser.org forum
http://www.voipuser.org/forum_topic_3045.html.

And the news item on voip-info.org

2005-10-04 - OpenPBX.org has emerged. A new fork of Asterisk, without any dual licensing. 
Help out!

>From reading the thread, it appears that the founder, mochouinard, is being a bit secretive or he just dosn't have the answers!

I saw joomla fork out from mambo - a VERY popular contenet mamagement
system but all the informatio was up and up. Allthough, I must sya that
the joomla fork was in the planning for a long time and many originla
developer team moved to joomla.

Any thought from the business comminity?-- Regards,smbPBX
___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

(Fwd) Re: [Asterisk-biz] PRI Prices

[Rehan Ahmed AllahWala - Super Technologies I]

Hello Brent,

Why don't you look into getting a T1 or a fibre connection to your office, and 
then 
transport pri over ip to your pbx or generate your on pri if u need a tdm 
connection ?

Rehan


--- Forwarded message follows ---
Date sent:  Fri, 07 Oct 2005 23:17:28 -0300
From:   Brad Borgald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion

Subject:Re: [Asterisk-biz] PRI Prices
Send reply to:  Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion





[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] 

Brent Franks wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I recently begun researching PRI prices to expand the capacity into 
> our PBX (located in Northern Virginia).  I received a quote from our 
> ILEC, that seems a bit outrageous to me.
>
> Here is what was sent to me:
>
> 2 Year Contract
>
> Recurring Charges (Monthly)
> Base PRI Price: $493.73/mo
> CallerID (Name+Num) for 23 Channels: $140.00/mo
> 20 DID's: $20.25/mo with $725.00 setup fee
>
> Local Calling, .096 cents on each call (no per minute)
> Long Distance, 5.3 cents per minute (billed in 60 second increments)
>
> Total Monthly: 653.98
>
> First issue, is the fact that CallerID is extra.  I thought this was 
> one of the reasons to go with a PRI, was it was included.  I've never 
> heard of PRI's w/o CID.
>
> Second, the first quote she sent did not have the DID's.  I told her 
> that we needed to use this for incoming calls.  Are DID's different 
> then incoming numbers?  I didn't think so, but she acted like it was.
>
> Does this price seem on the high side?  Northern VA seems to be a 
> realtively high competition area, hwoever I have found that a PRI can 
> only be ordered from the ILEC?
>
> Our desired setup was to have a PRI (For Inbound, with 3 or 4 numbers) 
> and maintain 4 or 5 analog lines for outgoing (with unlimited LD).
>
> Telco pricing is very confusing, and seems like its not very 
> small/medium size business friendly.
>
> Thanks in advance to any pointers anyone can provide!
>
> - brent
>
> 
>
> ___
> Asterisk-Biz mailing list
> Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
>   
Sometimes I wish I lived in the states.  All the pricing in Canada is 
regulated.  I priced the ILEC (Aliant) $1700/mo for a full PRI and $1500 
to install.  $3.10/DID with a min of 30, then sold in 10 packs.  Also, 
they are not allowed to sell data and voice over the same line so no 
chance to buy a single T1, run a few voice lines and bond the rest 
together and run HDLC.

There really isn't any competition on the east coast, maybe if I lived 
in Ontario...

Brad
___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
--- End of forwarded message ---Super Technologies Inc., Pensacola, 
Florida
http://www.supertec.com - Technologies from tomorrow, TODAY!
http://www.VirtualPhoneLine.com - Get A US, UK, EU Number, Forward it to
any  number in the world instantly.
http://www.PhoneOpia.com - SIP Based OPEN Phone Services.
http://www.MySuperPhone.com - The NEXT Generation of Telephone.
Http://www.ip-pabx.com - One World, One Number, One Pabx, All Hosted.
Http://www.superPBX.net - One World, One Number, One Pabx, Physical.
http://www.didX.org - We will sell all your DID stock for you.


___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

[Asterisk-biz] USA and UK DID when you signup on didx.org

[Rehan Ahmed AllahWala - Super Technologies I]

DIDX is offering Free DID number for showing how didx actually works.

Any ITSP / service provider who wishes to join didx which is at this time
free of charge to join and no per month charge, will get a FREE US and
a FREE UK did number to be able to play with and route from didx to
your iax2 or sip address.

Our CEO Is going to be in Astricon Next week, so if someone wishes to
meet up with her, Please let me know to make an appointment for it.

Thank You,

Rehan Ahmed
DIDX.org
Super Technologies Inc., Pensacola, Florida
http://www.supertec.com - Technologies from tomorrow, TODAY!
http://www.VirtualPhoneLine.com - Get A US, UK, EU Number, Forward it to
any  number in the world instantly.
http://www.PhoneOpia.com - SIP Based OPEN Phone Services.
http://www.MySuperPhone.com - The NEXT Generation of Telephone.
Http://www.ip-pabx.com - One World, One Number, One Pabx, All Hosted.
Http://www.superPBX.net - One World, One Number, One Pabx, Physical.
http://www.didX.org - We will sell all your DID stock for you.


___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

Re: [Asterisk-biz] Digium G.729 codec modules updated

[Jean-Michel Hiver]

Kevin P. Fleming a écrit :


This evening I posted a new set of Digium G.729 codec modules to our FTP
server and web site, for Linux x86 and x86-64 processors. They were
built using GCC 4.0.1, and they now report the processor they were
optimized for when they are loaded.


Any chance to have g.729 hardware encoding on Digium boards one of these 
days?


It would be great to have this kind of hardware to sort out CPU issues 
with g.729 encoding.


Cheers,
Jean-Michel.

___
Asterisk-Biz mailing list
Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz