RE: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
*61 = The latest weather forecast for New York City, press 1 to skip ahead... I love that. Juan- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 12:43 PM To: Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion Subject: Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org That's why the open source version of staroffice became openoffice.org rather than openoffice(somebody else owns that). Maybe digium needs to consider allowing a name like openasterisk or asteriskorg to be used freely in order to preserve rights for Asterisk(tm)? William Lloyd wrote: > Selectively prosecuting trademark and copyright infringement is a > problem. Unless a company is shown to be defending a trademark in > all cases of infringement then you can possibly lose the trademark. > Unless of course you negotiate and have a license with people to use it. > > This article says it better.. > > http://www.entreworld.org/Content/EntreByline.cfm?ColumnID=180 > > Specifically this bit seems relevant... > > A company that tolerates misuse of its marks by the public and/or > fails to enforce quality control standards in any licensing of the > mark may lose its trademark rights, and, therefore, one of its most > valuable weapons in the war for market share. > > -bill > > > > On 10-Oct-05, at 10:58 AM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: > >> Peter Nixon wrote: >> >> >>> So what you are saying is that what Novell and SUSE do by >>> distributing Asterisk with OpenH323, Spandsp, BRIStuff and a few >>> other patches all together on their FTP site, CDs and DVDs (not to >>> mention all of the 3rd party mirrors) and calling them collectively >>> Asterisk is illegal. Given that they have been doing so for longer >>> than 12 months and there is no way that Digium could have not know >>> about this has Digium filed suit against Novell for this (According >>> to you) Trademark and Copyright infringing behavior? >>> >> >> I'm saying that it is possible for this behavior to be considered a >> license/trademark infringement, if Digium chose to do so. Then >> again, IANAL, so I can't say with certainty that this is true... we >> will need to get some more clear trademark licensing documentation >> written before anyone could say conclusively exactly what sort of >> modifications are allowed without infringement. >> ___ >> 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 ___ 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
Now that we have gotten so amazingly off-topc on this discussion board, I too would like to contribute as far off topic as I possibly can. So, without further ado, I give you the lyrics to Imagine, by John Lennon: Imagine Imagine there's no heaven, It's easy if you try, No hell below us, Above us only sky, Imagine all the people living for today... Imagine there's no countries, It isn't hard to do, Nothing to kill or die for, No religion too, Imagine all the people living life in peace... Imagine no possesions, I wonder if you can, No need for greed or hunger, A brotherhood of man, Imagine all the people Sharing all the world... You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one, I hope some day you'll join us, And the world will live as one. Nothing further needs to be said regarding the fork -- the OpenPBX.org people are doing it and no amount of talk will stop them. If the Digium/Asterisk owners believe there is a legal issue with the fork, then they have the right to pursue judgement in court. So let's move back to the business of Asterisk business, and back to making money with a product that currently exists (Asterisk), and that we all are currently using (Asterisk) and what this mailing list is about (Asterisk). On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 03:40 -0400, Paul wrote: > Craig Guy wrote: > > > You'll usually see these as being design patents. I remember looking > > up a patent number on my garden hose sprayer once, it was a patent on > > the design itself or some such. > > > > Craig > > > Often they will patent something like the way the hinge clips to the top > of a cheap plastic beverage container. This type of thing was happening > long before software patents. They call it protection but it is really a > form of bullying the competitors. Anybosy with a molding machine can > turn out ice cube trays and cereal bowls. > > > - Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion" > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:32 PM > > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org > > > > > >> trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 01:13 -0400, Paul wrote: > >>> > >>>> I really don't see how any government can afford to properly > >>>> evaluate patent applications with the fees they collect. They > >>>> charge the same fee for salad spinners and codecs. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> And you get about the same results, there are some really silly patents > >>> out there. Some as simple as 2 C instructions. > >>> > >>> > >> Funny thing is how you see patent numbers and patent pending on a lot > >> of simple one-piece plastic items. I look those new ice cube trays > >> and laundry baskets over carefully and never find anything obviously > >> innovative. > >> > >> I'm sure that's the case with the salad spinner. He couldn't get a > >> patent on centrifugal force unless he put a microcomputer and > >> software into the product. :-) > >> -- Kenneth Shaw Director of Technology ExpiTrans, Inc. 129 W. Wilson St., Suite 204 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 tel: 949 278 7288 fax: 866 494 5043 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
Craig Guy wrote: You'll usually see these as being design patents. I remember looking up a patent number on my garden hose sprayer once, it was a patent on the design itself or some such. Craig Often they will patent something like the way the hinge clips to the top of a cheap plastic beverage container. This type of thing was happening long before software patents. They call it protection but it is really a form of bullying the competitors. Anybosy with a molding machine can turn out ice cube trays and cereal bowls. - Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 01:13 -0400, Paul wrote: I really don't see how any government can afford to properly evaluate patent applications with the fees they collect. They charge the same fee for salad spinners and codecs. And you get about the same results, there are some really silly patents out there. Some as simple as 2 C instructions. Funny thing is how you see patent numbers and patent pending on a lot of simple one-piece plastic items. I look those new ice cube trays and laundry baskets over carefully and never find anything obviously innovative. I'm sure that's the case with the salad spinner. He couldn't get a patent on centrifugal force unless he put a microcomputer and software into the product. :-) ___ 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 ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
You'll usually see these as being design patents. I remember looking up a patent number on my garden hose sprayer once, it was a patent on the design itself or some such. Craig - Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 01:13 -0400, Paul wrote: I really don't see how any government can afford to properly evaluate patent applications with the fees they collect. They charge the same fee for salad spinners and codecs. And you get about the same results, there are some really silly patents out there. Some as simple as 2 C instructions. Funny thing is how you see patent numbers and patent pending on a lot of simple one-piece plastic items. I look those new ice cube trays and laundry baskets over carefully and never find anything obviously innovative. I'm sure that's the case with the salad spinner. He couldn't get a patent on centrifugal force unless he put a microcomputer and software into the product. :-) ___ 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
On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 01:32 -0400, Paul wrote: > > > Funny thing is how you see patent numbers and patent pending on a lot of > simple one-piece plastic items. I look those new ice cube trays and > laundry baskets over carefully and never find anything obviously innovative. > most of those are design patents and not functional patents. Design patents are basically meaningless just means someone cant really make something look the same. > I'm sure that's the case with the salad spinner. He couldn't get a > patent on centrifugal force unless he put a microcomputer and software > into the product. :-) Sorry, but salad spinner sounds like a sex toy. -- 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
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 01:25 -0400, Paul wrote: > trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: > > > > >question, thus my comments about a 3rd party writing a compliant codec) > > > > > > > Let's assume that the algorithm used really deserved a patent. If you > can come up with a different algorithm that will properly interact with > a device using their algorithm, you can patent it and then put it under > a free license. > > OTOH, maybe they really don't deserve a patent. But it is not a software > patent they are standing on. Why do you keep bringing up whether or not they deserve it? That isnt the issue I was talking about. I was only talking about jurisdictions where patents like theirs may not be enforcable. That still has nothing to do with deserving it or not, and you wont be able to convince me that laws of one nation have anything to do with deserving something. They are seperate issues. -- 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
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 01:13 -0400, Paul wrote: I really don't see how any government can afford to properly evaluate patent applications with the fees they collect. They charge the same fee for salad spinners and codecs. And you get about the same results, there are some really silly patents out there. Some as simple as 2 C instructions. Funny thing is how you see patent numbers and patent pending on a lot of simple one-piece plastic items. I look those new ice cube trays and laundry baskets over carefully and never find anything obviously innovative. I'm sure that's the case with the salad spinner. He couldn't get a patent on centrifugal force unless he put a microcomputer and software into the product. :-) ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: question, thus my comments about a 3rd party writing a compliant codec) Let's assume that the algorithm used really deserved a patent. If you can come up with a different algorithm that will properly interact with a device using their algorithm, you can patent it and then put it under a free license. OTOH, maybe they really don't deserve a patent. But it is not a software patent they are standing on. ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 01:13 -0400, Paul wrote: > Suppose I discover a much better method of balancing the checkbook. It > is such a great improvement over well-known methods that I truly deserve > the patent I get for it. > > That means I can prevent you from using the method with pencil and > paper, with mechanical calculators and also with computer software. So I > don't need to patent any software, do I? > That depends on where I am located as to whether you can or cant. And that was my point, the laws dont apply uniformly across the globe, a patent doesnt mean as much in some places and in others its totally unenforcable. > I really don't see how any government can afford to properly evaluate > patent applications with the fees they collect. They charge the same fee > for salad spinners and codecs. > And you get about the same results, there are some really silly patents out there. Some as simple as 2 C instructions. > I haven't seen any strong arguments here that the g.729 algorithm itself > is not deserving of a patent. > I didnt know anyone was trying to make that argument only comments on whether its enforcable or not in certain jurisdictions. Two totally different things. -- 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
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
Matt Riddell wrote: trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: What specifically are they gonna license? That specific code or the g.729 codec itself? Were software patents in the EU recently voted to be invalid? That means that they can license a specific bit of code but not the method for that code, which means that a 3rd party can write their own g.729 codec and release that without paying the per seat patent fee. Unless that was just a dream I had a few months ago, which is just as likely. From: http://www.sipro.com/ Many companies believe that because the source code of a technology can be accessed at nearly no charge, they can integrate it within their products without considering intellectual property. They argue that since they possess the code itself they certainly have the rights to use this technology. Suppose I discover a much better method of balancing the checkbook. It is such a great improvement over well-known methods that I truly deserve the patent I get for it. That means I can prevent you from using the method with pencil and paper, with mechanical calculators and also with computer software. So I don't need to patent any software, do I? The underlying basis of a patent is new discovery of truth. The truth existed before it was discovered. Throwing a rock at an attacking beast was a new discovery of truth at one time. A method to get 50 kw of power from 100 grams of household garbage per day might win you a patent. It could be that your method will not be cost effective until long after the patent expires but if it is a new discovery of truth you can apply for a patent. Inventors do not conjure things up or create them out of thin air. The mathematical and scientific truths are what make the invention possible. The inventor is an explorer and discoverer. I really don't see how any government can afford to properly evaluate patent applications with the fees they collect. They charge the same fee for salad spinners and codecs. I haven't seen any strong arguments here that the g.729 algorithm itself is not deserving of a patent. ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 16:47 +1300, Matt Riddell wrote: > trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: > > What specifically are they gonna license? That specific code or the > > g.729 codec itself? Were software patents in the EU recently voted to > > be invalid? That means that they can license a specific bit of code but > > not the method for that code, which means that a 3rd party can write > > their own g.729 codec and release that without paying the per seat > > patent fee. > > > > Unless that was just a dream I had a few months ago, which is just as > > likely. > > From: http://www.sipro.com/ > > Many companies believe that because the source code of a technology can be > accessed at nearly no charge, they can integrate it within their products > without considering intellectual property. They argue that since they possess > the code itself they certainly have the rights to use this technology. > > > Yeah a company that is trying to get people to pay, should I quote sco.com about their $699/cpu linux license? Just because a company charges doesnt always mean they should. And if they are solely going off the patent (which they would have to if they didnt write the code in question, thus my comments about a 3rd party writing a compliant codec) then they may not have a leg to stand on legally speaking in certain countries, and the comments I read (again as I said before I havent read the actual statute) was that in the UK at least you cant patent an idea or methodology, but instead only a physical device, which the code isnt, even sippro calls it "intellectual property" - ie nontangible. And that was what I was commenting on. -- 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
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: > What specifically are they gonna license? That specific code or the > g.729 codec itself? Were software patents in the EU recently voted to > be invalid? That means that they can license a specific bit of code but > not the method for that code, which means that a 3rd party can write > their own g.729 codec and release that without paying the per seat > patent fee. > > Unless that was just a dream I had a few months ago, which is just as > likely. From: http://www.sipro.com/ Many companies believe that because the source code of a technology can be accessed at nearly no charge, they can integrate it within their products without considering intellectual property. They argue that since they possess the code itself they certainly have the rights to use this technology. -- Cheers, Matt Riddell ___ http://www.sineapps.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html) http://www.sineapps.com/rssfeed.php (Daily Asterisk News - rss) ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 09:29 -0500, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: > trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: > > > Yes I understand that there would need to be two versions *or* digium > > gives free licenses to people who can be verified in places where > > software patents dont exist. However becuase digium is in a place where > > they do I bet that it would be legally impossible for them to provide > > free licenses to those in say the EU (and aparently AU). > > That would only be possible if we could somehow guarantee that those > patent indemnification licenses were _always_ going to be used in the > country of purchase, which is impossible. > I would have thought it would be impossible becuase you are in a software patent country, and as such a legal argument could be made that the sale happened here and you didnt collect, thus putting you on the hook for the $10/seat. Without a deliverable the best you could do is go based on IP which with VPNs, proxies, and such you cant really verify that the person is in a different country or even for that matter a different office building. > At this time, Sipro and the consortium are operating under the belief > (right or wrong) that their patents apply worldwide because they are not > software patents. In fact, the patents themselves include no source > code, they are only algorithms, which could be implemented in a variety > of ways (software, custom silicon, abacus ). Any implementation of As I understand it at least in the UK that isnt enforcable. I havent read the specific UK law to know for sure, but its a rumor that is going around. Patents in the UK have to be something more tangible than a method, formulae, etc. I dont know if that is true of the EU in general, but its a moot point since you wouldnt be able to sell them anyway, I was just curious if you could/would. That now has been answered :) -- 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
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 22:46 +1300, Matt Riddell wrote: Eh?! So you think that France Telecom hasn't assigned SipPro to handle the licencing for Europe? What specifically are they gonna license? That specific code or the g.729 codec itself? Were software patents in the EU recently voted to be invalid? That means that they can license a specific bit of code but not the method for that code, which means that a 3rd party can write their own g.729 codec and release that without paying the per seat patent fee. Unless that was just a dream I had a few months ago, which is just as likely. It's not the code itself which is patented... It's the G.729 algorithms so any implementation of them requires a license. ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: Yes I understand that there would need to be two versions *or* digium gives free licenses to people who can be verified in places where software patents dont exist. However becuase digium is in a place where they do I bet that it would be legally impossible for them to provide free licenses to those in say the EU (and aparently AU). That would only be possible if we could somehow guarantee that those patent indemnification licenses were _always_ going to be used in the country of purchase, which is impossible. At this time, Sipro and the consortium are operating under the belief (right or wrong) that their patents apply worldwide because they are not software patents. In fact, the patents themselves include no source code, they are only algorithms, which could be implemented in a variety of ways (software, custom silicon, abacus ). Any implementation of the algorithm is covered by the patent, regardless of the form the implementation takes. Whether that qualifies as a 'software patent' in the eyes of the EU is open to debate... but keep in mind that every manufacturer that sells equipment containing G.729 support in the EU is still charging (and paying for) patent indemnification licenses. ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 22:46 +1300, Matt Riddell wrote: > Eh?! > > So you think that France Telecom hasn't assigned SipPro to handle the > licencing for Europe? > What specifically are they gonna license? That specific code or the g.729 codec itself? Were software patents in the EU recently voted to be invalid? That means that they can license a specific bit of code but not the method for that code, which means that a 3rd party can write their own g.729 codec and release that without paying the per seat patent fee. Unless that was just a dream I had a few months ago, which is just as likely. -- 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
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: > 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. Eh?! So you think that France Telecom hasn't assigned SipPro to handle the licencing for Europe? -- Cheers, Matt Riddell ___ http://www.sineapps.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html) http://www.sineapps.com/rssfeed.php (Daily Asterisk News - rss) ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
On 10/11/05 14:29 Dinesh Nair said the following: will not be able to be done if the source is modified, it kinda limits significant modifications to the source when openh323 is not used. o oops, that came out wrong. i meant it ALLOWS significant modifications to the source ONLY when openh323 is NOT used. :) -- 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
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 14:32 +0800, Dinesh Nair wrote: > On 10/11/05 14:15 trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com said the following: > > 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, > > there may be a technical issue with that given that the codecs downloaded > from digium's site would need to check for the licensing information for > the codec. doing what you require would need two versions of the codec, and > digium may have a problem in ensuring that folk from the US do not download > the version without the check. > Yes I understand that there would need to be two versions *or* digium gives free licenses to people who can be verified in places where software patents dont exist. However becuase digium is in a place where they do I bet that it would be legally impossible for them to provide free licenses to those in say the EU (and aparently AU). > however, i believe that folk here have made the intel implementation of > g.729a to work with asterisk, and you could use that where software patents > or the g.729 license is not required.[1] > > [1] i wouldnt think it would stay this way for long, the way software > patent recognition is being grandfathered in by way of free trade agreements. > Yeah, I am suprised that someone hasnt already published the intel code with diff applied somewhere, but if they did google didnt find it. I would have thought that sometime ago (before the EU patent decision) someone would have on a russian server. But alas that was aparently not the case. -- 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
RE: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 16:23 +1000, Mark Armstrong wrote: > Same question for Australia? > if softwre patents dont exist there, I would imagine that someone could write a codec and release that from within those countries legally. It should be on the person who downloads it to pay if required to do so, but sometimes courts are strange beasts ... Certainly the gpl'ed patch file (which isnt a valid gpl since you cant have the dependancies they do) that uses the intel code (which requires a license to get access to) shouldnt be much of a problem for people to get and use (other than the crap you have to deal with from intel to get the code and all the stuff that way ...) But if someone were to write something on their own they should be able to release it without a problem. But I know very little about legal systems outside the US so I really cant say. I would be interested however to hear digiums position on this, although I think I already know what they are going to say since they are US based. -- 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
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: 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. I do not know whether we sell those licenses outside of the USA or not (I'm not in sales ), but I'd suspect that we would sell them to anyone with a charge card that our web site will accept, since there is no product to be shipped (and thus no export/import restrictions). Whether those people choose to purchase them or not is entirely up to them, their local government(s) and their legal counsel, I'd imagine. ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
On 10/11/05 14:08 Kevin P. Fleming said the following: protect (as you already pointed out in another response) our trademark and the license exceptions associated with it. i can fully understand the need to protect the trademark, and this will go a long way towards assuaging concerns about modifications to the source which are necessary for different platforms. still however, since openh323 is needed for chan_h323, and that this will not be able to be done if the source is modified, it kinda limits significant modifications to the source when openh323 is not used. o -- 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
On 10/11/05 14:15 trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com said the following: 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, there may be a technical issue with that given that the codecs downloaded from digium's site would need to check for the licensing information for the codec. doing what you require would need two versions of the codec, and digium may have a problem in ensuring that folk from the US do not download the version without the check. however, i believe that folk here have made the intel implementation of g.729a to work with asterisk, and you could use that where software patents or the g.729 license is not required.[1] [1] i wouldnt think it would stay this way for long, the way software patent recognition is being grandfathered in by way of free trade agreements. -- 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
Same question for Australia? Regards Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2005 4:16 PM To: Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion Subject: Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org 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 ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
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
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
Peter Nixon wrote: On Sunday 09 October 2005 00:56, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: 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. Is this your personal position on the matter or are you posting in an official capacity as a Digium employee? 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. 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. ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
On 10/11/05 12:37 trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com said the following: Ahh I see what you mean, instead of asterisk business edition and just asterisk use two totally seperate names. That could cause more confusion than its worth, and cause potential trademark dissolution actually, it's been done with staroffice/openoffice.org and netscape/mozilla as well as sourcefire/snort[1]. in digium's case, perhaps the renaming should be of the open source project and not their commercial ABE version to reduce rebranding costs. [1] sourcefire has just been acquired for US$225m by Checkpoint -- 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
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 10:58 +0800, Dinesh Nair wrote: > > On 10/11/05 00:42 Paul said the following: > > consider allowing a name like openasterisk or asteriskorg to be used > > freely in order to preserve rights for Asterisk(tm)? > > that's exactly what i suggested, to use a different brand/name for the open > source version. > Ahh I see what you mean, instead of asterisk business edition and just asterisk use two totally seperate names. That could cause more confusion than its worth, and cause potential trademark dissolution which would be a bad thing for digium. Its too late to do that now at any rate, sometimes the best plans are those created after the fact. I originally thought you meant that openpbx should be called openasterisk and license that name from digium. Which seemed ... insane. -- 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
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
On 10/11/05 00:42 Paul said the following: consider allowing a name like openasterisk or asteriskorg to be used freely in order to preserve rights for Asterisk(tm)? that's exactly what i suggested, to use a different brand/name for the open source version. -- 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
On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 15:51 -0700, trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: > Ahh I think I understand now. That would be hard to enforce if you > release it gpled. Trying to control the trademark that way would be > counter to the license, and if you sued becuase someone did that it > *might* cause you to lose your trademark (I dont know what would happen > I havent heard of a single case where that did happen with open souce). > I this light I looked on my desk and saw a foam cupo holder (keeps your canned drink cold) its by Applix, for a product they did in 1991. Aster*X[tm], while it is workgroup productivity software, and not a pbx (which when tied into CRM, integration of voicemail, email, faxing, etc, which asterisk can do) the name is close and the related field is close enough that I could see lawyers at least trying to sue. So for all the people that have screamed that openpbx should be sued becuase they forked the gpl code (something allowed) those same people wouldnt want digium to be sued by applix (granted I dont know if they are around anymore, I did get this almost 15 years ago) for having a similar name and causing confusion. Even if Applix doesnt win it could be costly for digium. So rather than fight what is implicitly allowed under the gpl, and infact part of the intent of the gpl, just go with it, your kharma will increase. -- 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
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 18:45 -0400, Paul wrote: > What I was suggesting is that the trademarked name should not be used as > the name of a gpl package if you want to control its usage by distros or > individuals. I never heard of this before with gpl programs. You > download foo.tar.gz and build foo. The distros produce foo.rpm and > foo.deb packages. Ahh I think I understand now. That would be hard to enforce if you release it gpled. Trying to control the trademark that way would be counter to the license, and if you sued becuase someone did that it *might* cause you to lose your trademark (I dont know what would happen I havent heard of a single case where that did happen with open souce). -- 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
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 12:42 -0400, Paul wrote: That's why the open source version of staroffice became openoffice.org rather than openoffice(somebody else owns that). Maybe digium needs to consider allowing a name like openasterisk or asteriskorg to be used freely in order to preserve rights for Asterisk(tm)? Why if someone wants to fork asterisk and call it openpbx they are free under the terms of the GPL to do exactly that. WHy do they have to get permission from digium to use an alternate name selected by digium? The GPL was not designed to give developers so much power like that, instead it was designed to allow people to do exactly what is happening. All the heating emotions over someone saying 'hey this is a good thing, but I wanna put my persoinal touches to it' I just dont understand. If people dont like forks dont GPL your code. Its that simple. If you want GPLed code expect forks, and infact relish them because it says that someone somewhere is stating you did a good enough job, otherwise they would start from scratch. What I was suggesting is that the trademarked name should not be used as the name of a gpl package if you want to control its usage by distros or individuals. I never heard of this before with gpl programs. You download foo.tar.gz and build foo. The distros produce foo.rpm and foo.deb packages. ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 12:42 -0400, Paul wrote: > That's why the open source version of staroffice became openoffice.org > rather than openoffice(somebody else owns that). Maybe digium needs to > consider allowing a name like openasterisk or asteriskorg to be used > freely in order to preserve rights for Asterisk(tm)? > Why if someone wants to fork asterisk and call it openpbx they are free under the terms of the GPL to do exactly that. WHy do they have to get permission from digium to use an alternate name selected by digium? The GPL was not designed to give developers so much power like that, instead it was designed to allow people to do exactly what is happening. All the heating emotions over someone saying 'hey this is a good thing, but I wanna put my persoinal touches to it' I just dont understand. If people dont like forks dont GPL your code. Its that simple. If you want GPLed code expect forks, and infact relish them because it says that someone somewhere is stating you did a good enough job, otherwise they would start from scratch. -- 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
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 09:58 -0500, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: > Peter Nixon wrote: > > > So what you are saying is that what Novell and SUSE do by distributing > > Asterisk with OpenH323, Spandsp, BRIStuff and a few other patches all > > together on their FTP site, CDs and DVDs (not to mention all of the 3rd > > party > > mirrors) and calling them collectively Asterisk is illegal. Given that they > > have been doing so for longer than 12 months and there is no way that > > Digium > > could have not know about this has Digium filed suit against Novell for > > this > > (According to you) Trademark and Copyright infringing behavior? > > I'm saying that it is possible for this behavior to be considered a > license/trademark infringement, if Digium chose to do so. Then again, > IANAL, so I can't say with certainty that this is true... we will need > to get some more clear trademark licensing documentation written before > anyone could say conclusively exactly what sort of modifications are > allowed without infringement. The FSF woint back anyone that sues for license/trademark infringment against someone who bundled GPL code under the terms of hte GPL. And it would be silly for anyone to attempt to sue over that, while it may not get the GPL reviewed as legally valid, the mere fact that the authors took an overt act to allow exactly that type of actions, to sue for someone taking that actions would just be insane. For anyone that submitted code under the terms of the GPL they specifically stated they wanted forks to be possible. For the original authors who selected the GPL they specifically wanted forks to be a possiblity. Why now people are so concerned that a fork is occuring is beyond me. The GPL claims to protect this type of activity specifically. -- 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
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
That's why the open source version of staroffice became openoffice.org rather than openoffice(somebody else owns that). Maybe digium needs to consider allowing a name like openasterisk or asteriskorg to be used freely in order to preserve rights for Asterisk(tm)? William Lloyd wrote: Selectively prosecuting trademark and copyright infringement is a problem. Unless a company is shown to be defending a trademark in all cases of infringement then you can possibly lose the trademark. Unless of course you negotiate and have a license with people to use it. This article says it better.. http://www.entreworld.org/Content/EntreByline.cfm?ColumnID=180 Specifically this bit seems relevant... A company that tolerates misuse of its marks by the public and/or fails to enforce quality control standards in any licensing of the mark may lose its trademark rights, and, therefore, one of its most valuable weapons in the war for market share. -bill On 10-Oct-05, at 10:58 AM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: Peter Nixon wrote: So what you are saying is that what Novell and SUSE do by distributing Asterisk with OpenH323, Spandsp, BRIStuff and a few other patches all together on their FTP site, CDs and DVDs (not to mention all of the 3rd party mirrors) and calling them collectively Asterisk is illegal. Given that they have been doing so for longer than 12 months and there is no way that Digium could have not know about this has Digium filed suit against Novell for this (According to you) Trademark and Copyright infringing behavior? I'm saying that it is possible for this behavior to be considered a license/trademark infringement, if Digium chose to do so. Then again, IANAL, so I can't say with certainty that this is true... we will need to get some more clear trademark licensing documentation written before anyone could say conclusively exactly what sort of modifications are allowed without infringement. ___ 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 ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
Selectively prosecuting trademark and copyright infringement is a problem. Unless a company is shown to be defending a trademark in all cases of infringement then you can possibly lose the trademark. Unless of course you negotiate and have a license with people to use it. This article says it better.. http://www.entreworld.org/Content/EntreByline.cfm?ColumnID=180 Specifically this bit seems relevant... A company that tolerates misuse of its marks by the public and/or fails to enforce quality control standards in any licensing of the mark may lose its trademark rights, and, therefore, one of its most valuable weapons in the war for market share. -bill On 10-Oct-05, at 10:58 AM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: Peter Nixon wrote: So what you are saying is that what Novell and SUSE do by distributing Asterisk with OpenH323, Spandsp, BRIStuff and a few other patches all together on their FTP site, CDs and DVDs (not to mention all of the 3rd party mirrors) and calling them collectively Asterisk is illegal. Given that they have been doing so for longer than 12 months and there is no way that Digium could have not know about this has Digium filed suit against Novell for this (According to you) Trademark and Copyright infringing behavior? I'm saying that it is possible for this behavior to be considered a license/trademark infringement, if Digium chose to do so. Then again, IANAL, so I can't say with certainty that this is true... we will need to get some more clear trademark licensing documentation written before anyone could say conclusively exactly what sort of modifications are allowed without infringement. ___ 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
Peter Nixon wrote: So what you are saying is that what Novell and SUSE do by distributing Asterisk with OpenH323, Spandsp, BRIStuff and a few other patches all together on their FTP site, CDs and DVDs (not to mention all of the 3rd party mirrors) and calling them collectively Asterisk is illegal. Given that they have been doing so for longer than 12 months and there is no way that Digium could have not know about this has Digium filed suit against Novell for this (According to you) Trademark and Copyright infringing behavior? I'm saying that it is possible for this behavior to be considered a license/trademark infringement, if Digium chose to do so. Then again, IANAL, so I can't say with certainty that this is true... we will need to get some more clear trademark licensing documentation written before anyone could say conclusively exactly what sort of modifications are allowed without infringement. ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
On 10/10/05 01:17 Reid Forrest said the following: developing, funding, and releasing Asterisk. I think they deserve to profit from their work, and I will support them. If some on this list don't agree as do many, through the purchase of TDM/TE4XXP cards. in reality, i think we're still a long ways off from a pure VoIP network, and interconnect to the TDM trunk networks (E1s, FXOs, FXSs) would still be needed for quite a few years. but if the licensing/trademark thing is going to prevent people from being able to service a customer, then it would be difficult to support digium financially by using the TDM and TE4XXP cards especially since some customers need spandsp and H.323 together. i can understand that digium is trying to practice a "Do No Evil" google type of policy, but selective trademark enforcement and ambiguity in the waiver is not enough. it needs to be clear what is allowed and what is not allowed for third party ISVs and integrators to do to the source. -- 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
On 10/09/05 21:54 Matt Riddell said the following: an unbelievable day filled with people doing things in business that you just wouldn't do in a group of friends. and that's the crux. it really shouldnt have had to come to this, with differences ironed out over a discussion, private or public. however it's not about stabbing digium or anyone else in the back, but rather a progression of open source software. the gpl allows a fork, and the bigger issue here is the license incompatibility between the gpl and the openh323 and the openssl licenses. at the face of it, when it's no longer called Asterisk(tm), one can still get the freedoms given by the gpl but without the ability to link to openssl and openh323. there are workarounds to this without violating either license thru the use of chan_woomera as well as keeping separate boxes. in the separate box scenario, the copy of asterisk is unmodified/unpatched from the original, thus still keeping the Asterisk(tm) moniker sending calls via IAX2 to another patched asterisk which does the real call processing. i write software, and i'd like to go back to writing software instead of worrying about forks, project politics and general bad feelings. -- 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
On 10/09/05 21:22 Paul said the following: 2) Somebody uses open source as part of a custom solution without the consent of the customer. If it turns out the customer had plans to sell business franchises or even sell the software to competitors the courts have good reason to get involved. I pity the fool who does not get written consent to use open source components in advance. in commissioned work, the onus is normally on the customer to specify the license to be used for the delivered 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
On 10/09/05 23:51 Jeremy McNamara said the following: RIGHT ON! None of these bastards would have the power of Asterisk to fork if Digium hadn't gave it to the world in the first place. My Loyalties are to Mark and Digium all the way. let's not turn it into a "Us vs Them" type of thing. many projects can co-exist and compete in a friendly manner. i've been long involved in *BSD development and there's a nice friendly cooperation going on between OpenBSD, NetBSD and FreeBSD with many developers being core in all three projects. such a scenario could exist without us building artifical walls between projects. -- 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
On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 19:48 -0400, Tony Fontoura wrote: > If it is open, why ask for written consent? > One issue that plagues many currently active gpl products is lack of a paper trail to show that the contributor of the code actually had the legal right to contribute it. Patent law does still exist in some places when talking about source code, copyright is another issue. Lack of a paper trail on whom submitted what, when and all that can make it difficult should anything go legal. Any GPL product can directly rip software from another GPL product without any problems, as per the terms of the GPL (whether or not the GPL is valid is left for another discussion). When code is ripped (whether verbatim or derrived), or submitted by a developer, credit needs to be given (this part is the same whether BSD-style or GPL). Asking for written consent helps to preserve that right for the developer. Now some projects (asterisk is one) where there is a dual license, consent needs to be given for all the available licensing terms, gpl only, gpl+other, other only, etc. In some instances it needs to be done so that there is proof that the developer consented to anything other than GPL. This prevents the developer from changing their mind, this prevents the developer from claiming they didnt know it would be dual licensed, etc. If openpbx.org just takes the GPL asterisk tarball and works with that, no one has any claim if the code they get is GPLed. The GPL seeks to prevent developers from protecting their code from forks and other uses like that. There is one caveat that exists however, the terms that asterisk has for its GPL variant (license licked to specific version or not, which version, etc) must be the same with the fork project. This particular issue has the potential to get other projects into hot water (unless the blatent code theft continues as it has in the past). Take the linux kernel, at one time it was any version of the GPL, code was submitted, then it was locked to version 2 only, more code was submitted. If they decide to go with GPL version 3 they better have a good paper trail of everyone that submitted code allowing them to do that or they can be in some trouble for using a license of the GPL other than what the code submitter was aware of at the time of submission. This is already a potential problem (although no one seems to care at this point) since they did change the terms of the license at one point. Alan Cox seems to have a clever way of getting around this (and possibly others higher up in the linux decision making tree). They will 'rewrite' submitted code, omit the original copyright holders name for that section of code, and place their own name instead. Simply changing variable names and reformatting a for loop shouldnt count as 'all new code' but Alan has done this a few times so I guess in his mind it does. If openpbx.org takes the same approach and starts to claim copyright then there is cause for action against them, until they do that however I see no problem with a fork. Quite often forks fail because they were started for the wrong reasons. I am unsure of their reasons (and dont really care) however rather than see this as 'competition' or anything generally bad it might be a good thing, get some people who do not like a particular thing about asterisk to contribute, due to the parasitic nature of the gpl itself, asterisk in its non business edition variant can incorporate those changes or whatever into asterisk (ie users of asterisk or digium itself). And if there is a unified build environment for asterisk then users with ABE can potentially download the modules pre compiled for their version and use them internally. -- 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
RE: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
If it is open, why ask for written consent? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 9:22 AM To: Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion Subject: Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org Kenneth Shaw wrote: >On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 12:25 -0400, 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 >> >> > >You know, all this talk about something that doesn't even matter. >Although the GPL has been looked over in court, it has not been held up, >nor have all conditions of the GPL been systematically tested/upheld in >the ways that matter here. Not to mention other jurisdictions with their >own contract laws. > >If OpenPBX actually makes headway, and people start using it, do you >really want this to be the case where the GPL gets tested? Because I >don't think Digium or OpenPBX would be happy with the results, either >way. > >My comment on this whole matter is this: I have a hard time believing >that a court would restrict the use of software (or derived software) >whose source was distributed openly and freely, regardless of any >"license" attached to it, be it the Mozilla, Apache, GPL, Creative >Commons, or whatever. > >I believe that by putting code on a website, free for all to download, >you have put your code in the public domain, regardless of attached >licensing. Once something is in the public domain, you have given up >copyrights to that object, be it a photo, source code, novel, music, or >something else. > >I'm sure, as a developer who has worked in the world of corporate >contracts, that you have gone through the process of signing an NDA with >a company that jealously gaurds its IP. In the past I have needed to be >fingerprinted and then _signed_ a contract with multiple witnesses >present before I was allowed access to the company's source code. > >If you expect an ill-read licensing text included in the source tree in >a _separate_ file to offer the same type of protection that a signed >contract provides, then I believe you are mistaken. Reading a license >does not constitute a binding contract between the reader of the license >and the author, no matter how much one wishes it to be so. The courts >will decide what constitutes a binding contract in time, but I am >positive they will not decide that this is a binding methodology. > >In the end, should it be taken to court, both Digium and OpenPBX will >lose financial resources in litigation, and I don't believe it would >accomplish anything but to strike down certain conditions of the GPL. >Partly why there are not more cases regarding the GPL is that no one >wants to be the first to litigate. The potential legal hassle of the GPL >is enough to scare away companies who do not wish to develop or >contribute in the public domain. Does it really need to be tested? By >you? > > > I think you are generally right. The courts want to see that something substantative is at stake. I see two areas where the courts might be very willing to get involved: 1) Somebody uses GPL code as part of a closed source product. The product will be made GPL or removed from the market by court order. I think they would only remove it from the market if other parties rights prevented it from becoming open source. That would make the defendant liable for damages to all his licensees. I suppose making it GPL could result in the company having to refund a lot of money. 2) Somebody uses open source as part of a custom solution without the consent of the customer. If it turns out the customer had plans to sell business franchises or even sell the software to competitors the courts have good reason to get involved. I pity the fool who does not get written consent to use open source components in advance. ___ 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
David Webster wrote: FWIW, as a potential user lurking in the background and reading a message like the one below does not give me a positive impression of the writer's professionalism. And if that lack of professionalism has permeated the enterprise, I don't want to do business with them. Then don't do business with us. I really don't care, really. 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
David Webster wrote: FWIW, as a potential user lurking in the background and reading a message like the one below does not give me a positive impression of the writer's professionalism. And if that lack of professionalism has permeated the enterprise, I don't want to do business with them. If you read just about any technical mailing list these days your first inclination is to destroy all electronic devices you own and live on a small island. RIGHT ON! None of these bastards would have the power of Asterisk to fork if Digium hadn't gave it to the world in the first place. Hey, I'm a real bastard. Ask my father if you can find him for me. So the writer is associating these people with me? It doesn't bother me. I just don't give a fork one way or another. ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
RE: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
FWIW, as a potential user lurking in the background and reading a message like the one below does not give me a positive impression of the writer's professionalism. And if that lack of professionalism has permeated the enterprise, I don't want to do business with them. >> >> RIGHT ON! None of these bastards would have the power of Asterisk to >> fork if Digium hadn't gave it to the world in the first place. ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
Reid Forrest wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:asterisk-biz- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeremy McNamara Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 11:52 AM To: Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion Subject: Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org Matt Riddell wrote: I for one have built my business around a product Digium has given me. I'm not about to turn around and stab them in the back. RIGHT ON! None of these bastards would have the power of Asterisk to fork if Digium hadn't gave it to the world in the first place. My Loyalties are to Mark and Digium all the way. Jeremy McNamara I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Jeremy here. :) (no offense intended, Jeremy.) I don't want to get into legalities or dive into this flame war, but I think that Digium has done the world a great service by developing, funding, and releasing Asterisk. I think they deserve to profit from their work, and I will support them. If some on this list don't agree with Digium's vision of Asterisk's future, then they should contribute code and publicly debate their positions. Working against Digium IMHO is counter productive, and discourages future open source development. Reid At this point in time I doubt that Digium will lose any profit from the efforts of any asterisk fork group. I also doubt that people who can profit from asterisk will be switching to a forked asterisk. Digium can address the shortcomings a lot faster than any new project. All they have to do is give that a little more priority and the fork will lose whatever little bit of momentum it now has. ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
RE: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:asterisk-biz- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeremy McNamara > Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 11:52 AM > To: Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org > > Matt Riddell wrote: > > >I for one have built my business around a product Digium has given me. > I'm > >not about to turn around and stab them in the back. > > > > > > > > RIGHT ON! None of these bastards would have the power of Asterisk to > fork if Digium hadn't gave it to the world in the first place. > > My Loyalties are to Mark and Digium all the way. > > > Jeremy McNamara I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Jeremy here. :) (no offense intended, Jeremy.) I don't want to get into legalities or dive into this flame war, but I think that Digium has done the world a great service by developing, funding, and releasing Asterisk. I think they deserve to profit from their work, and I will support them. If some on this list don't agree with Digium's vision of Asterisk's future, then they should contribute code and publicly debate their positions. Working against Digium IMHO is counter productive, and discourages future open source development. Reid ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
RIGHT ON! None of these bastards would have the power of Asterisk to fork if Digium hadn't gave it to the world in the first place. While I think the project could have been started in a more 'diplomatic' way, I don't think calling people names is the right way to go. Hopefully both Asterisk and OpenPBX can become successful projects. Often competition can be seen detrimental at a micro-economic perspective but in fact benefits the industry as a whole. Look at the competition between gnome and kde. It has led to TWO great windows managers. There are many more examples, such as XFree86 / Xorg. As an end user I hope both projects dyamically feed on one another so we can get two stable, kickass PBXs. 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
Peter Nixon wrote: As for inflammatory posts about OpenPBX, it should be clearly understood that Jeremy McNamara has no affiliation with the OpenPBX project and anything he posts about it should be taken with the mug full of salt that everything else he says should be taken with. You are most absolutely right, I have no affiliation with that crap. I am not about to stab Mark in the back after all that he has given us. 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
Matt Riddell wrote: I for one have built my business around a product Digium has given me. I'm not about to turn around and stab them in the back. RIGHT ON! None of these bastards would have the power of Asterisk to fork if Digium hadn't gave it to the world in the first place. My Loyalties are to Mark and Digium all the way. 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
On Sunday 09 October 2005 00:56, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: > 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. Is this your personal position on the matter or are you posting in an official capacity as a Digium employee? -- 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
On Saturday 08 October 2005 23:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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... I am not sure who you think is associated with the project who "doesn't care about IP rights of others", but on the off chance that you are reffering to my previous post where I called Jeremy bluff on the rubbish he posted about g.729, SSL and H.323 I will personally reply: As one of the many people involved in the OpenPBX project as well as many other Open Source projects including Asterisk (Yes, you can find my code in Asterisk too) I think Intellectual Property rights are VERY important. Licenses like the GPL, the LGPL, the MPL and others are critically important to the success of Open Source software and I and everyone I know involved with OpenPBX takes great care to not infringe on others rights, or to use other people's code inappropriately. As for inflammatory posts about OpenPBX, it should be clearly understood that Jeremy McNamara has no affiliation with the OpenPBX project and anything he posts about it should be taken with the mug full of salt that everything else he says should be taken with. Regards -- 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
Matt Riddell wrote: Paul wrote: Matt Riddell wrote: Well, that's enough on the topic for me... This is the Asterisk List and that product has ceased to be Asterisk. I don't see why Digium (who gave us all Asterisk) should have to pay for advertising for a group of people who sign contracts saying they won't do anything to damage Digium and then proceed to do it anyway. I for one have built my business around a product Digium has given me. I'm not about to turn around and stab them in the back. Matt, if that is true(they signed such a contract) I have to agree with you. That would show a lack of integrity. I certainly don't see the Digium people doing anything to show a lack of integrity. Call me ancient and old fashioned but I still believe a person's integrity is of high importance. I know there are others here with the same values. It shows in the general tone of their posts over the last few months. I don't think we want to provide a forum for people of no integrity. Indeed. I'm probably coming across as more pissed off than I should be, but I've had an unbelievable day filled with people doing things in business that you just wouldn't do in a group of friends. In both situations, nobody is probably doing anything illegal, but it's just not _right_. :) All good. Hang in there, Matt. Sometimes less wealth and more sanity is the only logical choice. I have lots of poor friends but they are good friends. ___ 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 wrote: > Matt Riddell wrote: > >> Well, that's enough on the topic for me... >> >> This is the Asterisk List and that product has ceased to be Asterisk. >> I don't >> see why Digium (who gave us all Asterisk) should have to pay for >> advertising >> for a group of people who sign contracts saying they won't do anything to >> damage Digium and then proceed to do it anyway. >> >> I for one have built my business around a product Digium has given >> me. I'm >> not about to turn around and stab them in the back. >> >> >> > Matt, if that is true(they signed such a contract) I have to agree with > you. That would show a lack of integrity. I certainly don't see the > Digium people doing anything to show a lack of integrity. > > Call me ancient and old fashioned but I still believe a person's > integrity is of high importance. I know there are others here with the > same values. It shows in the general tone of their posts over the last > few months. I don't think we want to provide a forum for people of no > integrity. Indeed. I'm probably coming across as more pissed off than I should be, but I've had an unbelievable day filled with people doing things in business that you just wouldn't do in a group of friends. In both situations, nobody is probably doing anything illegal, but it's just not _right_. :) All good. -- Cheers, Matt Riddell ___ http://www.sineapps.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html) http://www.sineapps.com/rssfeed.php (Daily Asterisk News - rss) ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
Matt Riddell wrote: Well, that's enough on the topic for me... This is the Asterisk List and that product has ceased to be Asterisk. I don't see why Digium (who gave us all Asterisk) should have to pay for advertising for a group of people who sign contracts saying they won't do anything to damage Digium and then proceed to do it anyway. I for one have built my business around a product Digium has given me. I'm not about to turn around and stab them in the back. Matt, if that is true(they signed such a contract) I have to agree with you. That would show a lack of integrity. I certainly don't see the Digium people doing anything to show a lack of integrity. Call me ancient and old fashioned but I still believe a person's integrity is of high importance. I know there are others here with the same values. It shows in the general tone of their posts over the last few months. I don't think we want to provide a forum for people of no integrity. ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
Kenneth Shaw wrote: On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 12:25 -0400, 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 You know, all this talk about something that doesn't even matter. Although the GPL has been looked over in court, it has not been held up, nor have all conditions of the GPL been systematically tested/upheld in the ways that matter here. Not to mention other jurisdictions with their own contract laws. If OpenPBX actually makes headway, and people start using it, do you really want this to be the case where the GPL gets tested? Because I don't think Digium or OpenPBX would be happy with the results, either way. My comment on this whole matter is this: I have a hard time believing that a court would restrict the use of software (or derived software) whose source was distributed openly and freely, regardless of any "license" attached to it, be it the Mozilla, Apache, GPL, Creative Commons, or whatever. I believe that by putting code on a website, free for all to download, you have put your code in the public domain, regardless of attached licensing. Once something is in the public domain, you have given up copyrights to that object, be it a photo, source code, novel, music, or something else. I'm sure, as a developer who has worked in the world of corporate contracts, that you have gone through the process of signing an NDA with a company that jealously gaurds its IP. In the past I have needed to be fingerprinted and then _signed_ a contract with multiple witnesses present before I was allowed access to the company's source code. If you expect an ill-read licensing text included in the source tree in a _separate_ file to offer the same type of protection that a signed contract provides, then I believe you are mistaken. Reading a license does not constitute a binding contract between the reader of the license and the author, no matter how much one wishes it to be so. The courts will decide what constitutes a binding contract in time, but I am positive they will not decide that this is a binding methodology. In the end, should it be taken to court, both Digium and OpenPBX will lose financial resources in litigation, and I don't believe it would accomplish anything but to strike down certain conditions of the GPL. Partly why there are not more cases regarding the GPL is that no one wants to be the first to litigate. The potential legal hassle of the GPL is enough to scare away companies who do not wish to develop or contribute in the public domain. Does it really need to be tested? By you? I think you are generally right. The courts want to see that something substantative is at stake. I see two areas where the courts might be very willing to get involved: 1) Somebody uses GPL code as part of a closed source product. The product will be made GPL or removed from the market by court order. I think they would only remove it from the market if other parties rights prevented it from becoming open source. That would make the defendant liable for damages to all his licensees. I suppose making it GPL could result in the company having to refund a lot of money. 2) Somebody uses open source as part of a custom solution without the consent of the customer. If it turns out the customer had plans to sell business franchises or even sell the software to competitors the courts have good reason to get involved. I pity the fool who does not get written consent to use open source components in advance. ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
Well, that's enough on the topic for me... This is the Asterisk List and that product has ceased to be Asterisk. I don't see why Digium (who gave us all Asterisk) should have to pay for advertising for a group of people who sign contracts saying they won't do anything to damage Digium and then proceed to do it anyway. I for one have built my business around a product Digium has given me. I'm not about to turn around and stab them in the back. -- Cheers, Matt Riddell ___ http://www.sineapps.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html) http://www.sineapps.com/rssfeed.php (Daily Asterisk News - rss) ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
On Sunday 09 October 2005 00:44, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: > 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. Firstly, I am not a lawyer myself, however my understanding is that if a trademark holder only selectively enforces a trademark in the manner you mention above then eventually the trademark holder can lose their trademark... You are also confusing trademark and copyright in the above statement... -- 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
On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 12:25 -0400, 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 You know, all this talk about something that doesn't even matter. Although the GPL has been looked over in court, it has not been held up, nor have all conditions of the GPL been systematically tested/upheld in the ways that matter here. Not to mention other jurisdictions with their own contract laws. If OpenPBX actually makes headway, and people start using it, do you really want this to be the case where the GPL gets tested? Because I don't think Digium or OpenPBX would be happy with the results, either way. My comment on this whole matter is this: I have a hard time believing that a court would restrict the use of software (or derived software) whose source was distributed openly and freely, regardless of any "license" attached to it, be it the Mozilla, Apache, GPL, Creative Commons, or whatever. I believe that by putting code on a website, free for all to download, you have put your code in the public domain, regardless of attached licensing. Once something is in the public domain, you have given up copyrights to that object, be it a photo, source code, novel, music, or something else. I'm sure, as a developer who has worked in the world of corporate contracts, that you have gone through the process of signing an NDA with a company that jealously gaurds its IP. In the past I have needed to be fingerprinted and then _signed_ a contract with multiple witnesses present before I was allowed access to the company's source code. If you expect an ill-read licensing text included in the source tree in a _separate_ file to offer the same type of protection that a signed contract provides, then I believe you are mistaken. Reading a license does not constitute a binding contract between the reader of the license and the author, no matter how much one wishes it to be so. The courts will decide what constitutes a binding contract in time, but I am positive they will not decide that this is a binding methodology. In the end, should it be taken to court, both Digium and OpenPBX will lose financial resources in litigation, and I don't believe it would accomplish anything but to strike down certain conditions of the GPL. Partly why there are not more cases regarding the GPL is that no one wants to be the first to litigate. The potential legal hassle of the GPL is enough to scare away companies who do not wish to develop or contribute in the public domain. Does it really need to be tested? By you? -- Kenneth Shaw Director of Technology ExpiTrans, Inc. 129 W. Wilson St., Suite 204 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 tel: 949 278 7288 fax: 866 494 5043 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
On Sunday 09 October 2005 00:56, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: > 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. So what you are saying is that what Novell and SUSE do by distributing Asterisk with OpenH323, Spandsp, BRIStuff and a few other patches all together on their FTP site, CDs and DVDs (not to mention all of the 3rd party mirrors) and calling them collectively Asterisk is illegal. Given that they have been doing so for longer than 12 months and there is no way that Digium could have not know about this has Digium filed suit against Novell for this (According to you) Trademark and Copyright infringing behavior? Regards -- 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
Hi, Jeremy McNamara 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. You are making assumptions on _how_ OpenPBX would reach those functionalities. We all agree that - It is not allowed to _link_ to g729 patented code in a GPL product - It is not always (!) allowed to link OpenSSL and OpenH323 in a pure GPL product (see also http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2) However there are design methods that allow one to reach the functionality through a different process. Florian ___ Asterisk-Biz mailing list Asterisk-Biz@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
On 10/09/05 07:40 Bruce Ferrell said the following: 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 i'm sure it wouldn't be. -- 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
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
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
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
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
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
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
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
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
'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
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
[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
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
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
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
Re: [Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
