subject:"RE\: \[Asterisk\-Users\] Re\: www.openpbx.org"

I am astounded by the total lack of integrity people have displayed here.

Digium gave you Asterisk, and yet you turn around and stab them in the back.
As this is the Asterisk Users mailing list and this product will cease to be
Asterisk the moment it is forked, I don't really want to see any more spamming
from the OpenPBX crew.

-- 
Cheers,

Matt Riddell
___

http://www.sineapps.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html)
http://www.sineapps.com/rssfeed.php (Daily Asterisk News - rss)
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

 Interesting.  In their meeting minutes
 (http://wiki.openpbx.org/tiki-index.php?page=Meeting+Minutes+10-5-2005)
 I see that a BKW was elected to the board.  Is this Brian West?

LOL!!! And the truth comes out.  Children throwing their toys because they
don't have enough power...

-- 
Cheers,

Matt Riddell
___

http://www.sineapps.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html)
http://www.sineapps.com/rssfeed.php (Daily Asterisk News - rss)
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

Tony Mountifield wrote:
 Yes, it looks like the main people behind it are bkw, anthm and moc.
 They will be a great loss to the Asterisk community if they go off and
 only do their own thing.

I'm not sure I agree with that.  If your friend stabs you in the back, is it
really a great loss if they subsequently leave?

-- 
Cheers,

Matt Riddell
___

http://www.sineapps.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html)
http://www.sineapps.com/rssfeed.php (Daily Asterisk News - rss)
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-09 Thread Jean-Michel Hiver


Matt Riddell a écrit :


Tony Mountifield wrote:
 


Yes, it looks like the main people behind it are bkw, anthm and moc.
They will be a great loss to the Asterisk community if they go off and
only do their own thing.
   



I'm not sure I agree with that.  If your friend stabs you in the back, is it
really a great loss if they subsequently leave?
 

Stop about the stabbing in the back issue. If Digium didn't want 
people to be able to fork their software, they wouldn't have used the GPL.



___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
  http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

*PLONK*

-- 
Cheers,

Matt Riddell
___

http://www.sineapps.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html)
http://www.sineapps.com/rssfeed.php (Daily Asterisk News - rss)
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-09 Thread Jean-Michel Hiver


Matt Riddell a écrit :


*PLONK*
 


I was only stating the obvious... sorry you don't like it.

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
  http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-09 Thread Francesco Peeters

On Sun, October 9, 2005 15:31, Matt Riddell said:
 *PLONK*

 --
 Cheers,

 Matt Riddell


Is that the sound of you dropping out of this list? It can't be a reply to
the previous poster's e-mail, as that was in fact a completely correct
statement...

But back to the topic: I can see the reasons why Digium does what they do,
but I can also appreciate the reasons behind openpbx.org!

It's a risk Digium took willingly and knowingly. They must have known from
the start that this was a risk, but it is a risk they took, I guess with
in the back of their minds the realisation that the risk would most likely
be worth it in return for the contributions they'd get to the
source-tree...

I for one will keep track of both to see which one develops best. For now
I am in the (*) camp, but if they lose ground in regard to openpbx.org, I
may switch.

That is the nice thing about Open Source: you *can* switch, and the best
project(s) will survive...

Just my  0,02!

-- 
Francesco Peeters

GPG Key = AA69 E7C6 1D8A F148 160C  D5C4 9943 6E38 D5E3 7704
If your program doesn't recognize my signature, please visit
http://www.CAcert.org/index.php?id=3 to retrieve the Root CA certificate.
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

RE : [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-09 Thread Olivier Taylor

Very funny discussion :)

Same thing arrives with a lot of Gpl softwares,
A few months ago, it was another Voip software wich forked (Sip Express
Router aka Ser), there were pro and cons, now the discussion is finished and
they all cooperate.

Olivier

-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Jean-Michel
Hiver
Envoyé : dimanche 9 octobre 2005 15:35
À : Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Objet : Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org


Matt Riddell a écrit :

*PLONK*
  

I was only stating the obvious... sorry you don't like it.

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-09 Thread Andrew Kohlsmith

On Sunday 09 October 2005 09:08, Matt Riddell wrote:
 Digium gave you Asterisk, and yet you turn around and stab them in the
 back. As this is the Asterisk Users mailing list and this product will
 cease to be Asterisk the moment it is forked, I don't really want to see
 any more spamming from the OpenPBX crew.

Actually Digium gave the core of Asterisk.  There is a *lot* of code in there 
that didn't come FROM Digium, but rather that Digium has incorporated and 
made a part of Asterisk.

Further, I think the *vast* majority of the issues people have with Digium and 
Asterisk have nothing to do with licensing but rather the feelings of 
abandonment and undisclosed and undocumented development coming FROM Digium.  
Things HAVE gotten better significantly over the last little while (I 
constantly point to Kevin Fleming's hiring as the turning point) but from 
the outside it really does feel like a lot of the issues people bring up 
with Asterisk and Asterisk Development are flippantly written off by Mark, if 
not just silently ignored.  Issues with hardware, issues with software... 
some with patches that seem to work very well are just ignored in favour of 
some new feature or implementation of an old feature.  It's very infuriating.

Now I'm not one of the OpenPBX folk; I still run and work on and complain 
about Asterisk.  I *want* to see Mark, and to a bigger degree Digium, 
succeed.  I am doing what I can to help that happen.  The OpenPBX fork 
happened for very real and very important issues, and I do hope that Mark and 
Digium takes notice and doesn't just write off these people or their 
reasonings.  In the same vein, I hope that the OpenPBX fork finds its 
original reasons again, because the talk in the IRC channel and such has 
shifted significantly.  It's no longer about fixing Asterisk's problems, 
it's about new paradigms and core rewrites and total scalability...  It very 
very much feels to me that it's all about ego now and not about anything 
technical.

There are some very, very smart people working on it, people I am personally 
saddened to see shift their focus off of Asterisk, and I hope that Digium is 
too.  However if they don't regain their focus we'll end up with YAOSTP -- 
Yet Another Open Source Telephony Project -- and one that looks like it will 
be forever stuck in the design phase.  I've been in design and development 
for over ten years now and it's always sad to see this kind of thing happen.

Forks *can* be good.  I am part of the Vexi Project (http://www.vexi.org) fork 
from Ibex (nee XWT).  This was a good fork.  OpenPBX could be another good 
fork.  Only time will tell.

-A.
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
 Actually Digium gave the core of Asterisk.  There is a *lot* of code in there 
 that didn't come FROM Digium, but rather that Digium has incorporated and 
 made a part of Asterisk.

Of course!! Well understood and agreed.

 Further, I think the *vast* majority of the issues people have with Digium 
 and 
 Asterisk have nothing to do with licensing but rather the feelings of 
 abandonment and undisclosed and undocumented development coming FROM Digium.  
 Things HAVE gotten better significantly over the last little while (I 
 constantly point to Kevin Fleming's hiring as the turning point) but from 
 the outside it really does feel like a lot of the issues people bring up 
 with Asterisk and Asterisk Development are flippantly written off by Mark, if 
 not just silently ignored.  Issues with hardware, issues with software... 
 some with patches that seem to work very well are just ignored in favour of 
 some new feature or implementation of an old feature.  It's very infuriating.

But why couldn't it have been brought into the public forum and discussed?

 Now I'm not one of the OpenPBX folk; I still run and work on and complain 
 about Asterisk.  I *want* to see Mark, and to a bigger degree Digium, 
 succeed.  I am doing what I can to help that happen.  The OpenPBX fork 
 happened for very real and very important issues, and I do hope that Mark and 
 Digium takes notice and doesn't just write off these people or their 
 reasonings.  In the same vein, I hope that the OpenPBX fork finds its 
 original reasons again, because the talk in the IRC channel and such has 
 shifted significantly.  It's no longer about fixing Asterisk's problems, 
 it's about new paradigms and core rewrites and total scalability...  It very 
 very much feels to me that it's all about ego now and not about anything 
 technical.

Hmmm I don't know.  I have heard rumours of things like ./configure which
would be really nice if they were in Asterisk.

 There are some very, very smart people working on it, people I am personally 
 saddened to see shift their focus off of Asterisk, and I hope that Digium is 
 too.  However if they don't regain their focus we'll end up with YAOSTP -- 
 Yet Another Open Source Telephony Project -- and one that looks like it will 
 be forever stuck in the design phase.  I've been in design and development 
 for over ten years now and it's always sad to see this kind of thing happen.

Indeed.  Coupled with a bad day, it's incredibly sad.  But I'm sure as time
passes on, the wounds will be healed and as someone else stated, code will
begin to flow in both directions.  After all there will be no easier platform
to port code between than another Asterisk-based system.

 Forks *can* be good.  I am part of the Vexi Project (http://www.vexi.org) 
 fork 
 from Ibex (nee XWT).  This was a good fork.  OpenPBX could be another good 
 fork.  Only time will tell.

Agreed.  It's nice to have a measured rather than inflammatory post on the
subject (I say this full well knowing I have been flaming for the past hour),
as it acts to slightly dampen the situation and allows all to view it in a
more measured manner.

As you say, only time will tell.

-- 
Cheers,

Matt Riddell
___

http://www.sineapps.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html)
http://www.sineapps.com/rssfeed.php (Daily Asterisk News - rss)
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-09 Thread Andrew Kohlsmith

On Sunday 09 October 2005 11:36, Matt Riddell wrote:

[ issues with Asterisk development ]
 But why couldn't it have been brought into the public forum and discussed?

It has been.  Over, and Over, and Over again.  On here, on -dev and on IRC.  
Many times.

[openpbx design changes]
 Hmmm I don't know.  I have heard rumours of things like ./configure which
 would be really nice if they were in Asterisk.

Yes there are many things that would be nice to get into Asterisk.  It's been 
rumoured that ./configure will never be in Asterisk, and if that's a 
dealbreaker, then yeah...  I guess you're screwed.  My personal opinion is 
that all the little shitty things in Asterisk need to take priority to 
newfangled hoo-hah.  CVS HEAD development needs to center around fixing the 
bugs and inconsistencies and THEN go back to features.  It'll never happen, 
though.  :-(

branching for 1.2 and doing it there isn't good enough, IMO.  There needs to 
be a long, boring time of development where the odd shit gets squashed by the 
core smart people.

 Indeed.  Coupled with a bad day, it's incredibly sad.  But I'm sure as time
 passes on, the wounds will be healed and as someone else stated, code will
 begin to flow in both directions.  After all there will be no easier
 platform to port code between than another Asterisk-based system.

Agreed.

 Agreed.  It's nice to have a measured rather than inflammatory post on the
 subject (I say this full well knowing I have been flaming for the past
 hour), as it acts to slightly dampen the situation and allows all to view
 it in a more measured manner.

:-)  A little flame now and again is good for the soul.  It lets people know 
that you're passionate about the subject. 

-A.
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-09 Thread asterisk




 Tony Mountifield wrote:
  Yes, it looks like the main people behind it are bkw, anthm and moc.
  They will be a great loss to the Asterisk community if they go off and
  only do their own thing.

 I'm not sure I agree with that.  If your friend stabs you in the back, is
it
 really a great loss if they subsequently leave?

 -- 
 Cheers,

 Matt Riddell

I dont see how any backstabbing was done.  Over the past two years I have
seen this coming.

First with the dual licensing, many people over the years brought up what
implications this may have in the future.  Many people said that if Digium
went to a closed source distribution based on code that the project would
fork.  Other people worked on it, generally thinking it would just be used
under the GPL, not really thinking about ABE.  With the ABE version that a
fork was called for.

The other thing that I think many are missing is the recent deal with Intel
and finally I remember that the Digium backed Asterisk Certification was
unfair and pricy since many guru developers would still need to take the
exam to become certified just to line a few people's pocket even thought
they probably know more than the people teaching the cert course.

When I first stumbled accross asterisk, I predicted all of this over two
years ago.

The (civic) republican theory of the Second Amendment holds that the
citizenry's right to bear arms is necessary to prevent tyrannical
governments from abridging liberty.

Instead of guns, we have the GPL and the ability to fork.

I am neutral and I can see both sides of the arguement.  I think a fork is a
great idea and anyone that says, it will fail and threaten legal
involvment does not really think it will fail but will do whatever they can
to make it fail.

Thanks,
Steve

PS.  I think that the openpbx.org crew should show some class and not post
to this list anymore.  Create your own list.  Make sure that google results
for asterisk turn up openpbx.org and even recruit people by sending direct
emails to he desired talent pool.

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-09 Thread Mike M

On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:43:28PM -0400, Paul wrote:
 Steve Underwood wrote:
 
 It's not harder. It's just different. A number of things have similar 
 requirements. The ISDN4Linux folk have certain versions of their 
 software approved by the telecoms bodies in Europe. They need to tie 
 down exactly what was approved, so any other versions emit a notice 
 that says they are unapproved versions. They do this with a signature 
 on the approved version. It seems to work out OK.

From the ISDN4Linux FAQs:

Actually, since April 2000 the rules for certification have changed. Now
the producer of an ISDN card has to do only hardware tests, the driver
is not part of the certification anymore. This applies to the whole
European Community.

http://www.isdn4linux.de/faq/i4lfaq-25.html

If this is true then perhaps the ruling telecoms have improved their
protocol violation defenses and dispensed with the certification
process. This would be a Good Thing (tm).
 
 
 I think that the important thing to remember is that a good reverse 
 engineer can take the object code from a rom and produce source files 
 that are better commented than the original source ever was. 

Reversers are mundane scribes and relics. Their services were valued in the past
when software was expensive and poor quality. Free and competitively valued 
software has devalued their efforts.  Besides, it's hard to build a community 
or support organization around stolen merchandise. Further evidence of
their insignificance is the lack of coverage by the media.

-- 
Mike
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-09 Thread Paul


Mike M wrote:


On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:43:28PM -0400, Paul wrote:
 


Steve Underwood wrote:
   

It's not harder. It's just different. A number of things have similar 
requirements. The ISDN4Linux folk have certain versions of their 
software approved by the telecoms bodies in Europe. They need to tie 
down exactly what was approved, so any other versions emit a notice 
that says they are unapproved versions. They do this with a signature 
on the approved version. It seems to work out OK.
 




From the ISDN4Linux FAQs:


Actually, since April 2000 the rules for certification have changed. Now
the producer of an ISDN card has to do only hardware tests, the driver
is not part of the certification anymore. This applies to the whole
European Community.

http://www.isdn4linux.de/faq/i4lfaq-25.html

If this is true then perhaps the ruling telecoms have improved their
protocol violation defenses and dispensed with the certification
process. This would be a Good Thing (tm).
 

I think that the important thing to remember is that a good reverse 
engineer can take the object code from a rom and produce source files 
that are better commented than the original source ever was. 
   



Reversers are mundane scribes and relics. Their services were valued in the past
when software was expensive and poor quality. Free and competitively valued 
software has devalued their efforts.  Besides, it's hard to build a community 
or support organization around stolen merchandise. Further evidence of

their insignificance is the lack of coverage by the media.

 

Mike, the context was regarding security by obscurity. It has nothing to 
do with stealing a product to sell to others. The only reverse 
engineering I ever did had nothing at all to do with bootlegging or 
counterfeiting software. The closest I ever came to that was reversal 
for the purpose of proving it contained stolen goods. By the way, I am 
not a mundane scribe or a relic by any means. Closest I ever came to 
being a scribe is putting a signature of mine in pcb copper and some 
silicon. I also left my signature in the leftover gates of some array 
logic. Calling me a scribe or relic is a rather hefty insult, don't you 
think?



___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
  http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-09 Thread Mike M

On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 01:51:41PM -0400, Paul wrote:
 Mike M wrote:
 
 Mike, the context was regarding security by obscurity. It has nothing to 
 do with stealing a product to sell to others. The only reverse 
 engineering I ever did had nothing at all to do with bootlegging or 
 counterfeiting software. The closest I ever came to that was reversal 
 for the purpose of proving it contained stolen goods. By the way, I am 
 not a mundane scribe or a relic by any means. Closest I ever came to 
 being a scribe is putting a signature of mine in pcb copper and some 
 silicon. I also left my signature in the leftover gates of some array 
 logic. Calling me a scribe or relic is a rather hefty insult, don't you 
 think?

The context of reversing was difficult to discern from repeated
readings. The message seemed to be to not bother closing software because it
can be reversed easily and the source can be better than the original.

I supposed you were describing hypothetical abstract possibilites and not 
actual 
occurences. My responses were similarly abstract.  I admit there can be 
legally justifiable reasons for reversing, or that it could be a form of
archaelogy, but the original statement did not suggest these cases.

Now that your context, meaning, and intent are clearly defined,
it's evident you should not take umbrage with the description of
reversers as scribes and relics as those terms do not apply to you.

Besides, illegitimate reversers can't complain about being insulted because 
they run
the risk of being exposed. And then their contacts can be investigated
for possible license violations.

Reversing to exploit security weakness is most likely very effective. I
agree with you that securing by keeping software closed is folly.
Opening the software does not make it secure either.

I return to my original point: Keeping software closed is done only when 
you can't figure out how to have it open.  The point that launched this 
sub-discussion was that Asterisk has a dual license and OpenPBX does not.  
The underlying assumption is that the commercial license for Asterisk is 
for a closed source super-implementation of the project. Could this be a 
competitive advantage? As you point out, there are certainly no security
advantages.  There could be some commercial advantages that currently
exist for Asterisk that might be altered with the presence of OpenPBX.

-- 
Mike
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-09 Thread Paul


Mike M wrote:


On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 01:51:41PM -0400, Paul wrote:
 


Mike M wrote:
   

Mike, the context was regarding security by obscurity. It has nothing to 
do with stealing a product to sell to others. The only reverse 
engineering I ever did had nothing at all to do with bootlegging or 
counterfeiting software. The closest I ever came to that was reversal 
for the purpose of proving it contained stolen goods. By the way, I am 
not a mundane scribe or a relic by any means. Closest I ever came to 
being a scribe is putting a signature of mine in pcb copper and some 
silicon. I also left my signature in the leftover gates of some array 
logic. Calling me a scribe or relic is a rather hefty insult, don't you 
think?
   



The context of reversing was difficult to discern from repeated
readings. The message seemed to be to not bother closing software because it
can be reversed easily and the source can be better than the original.

I supposed you were describing hypothetical abstract possibilites and not actual 
occurences. My responses were similarly abstract.  I admit there can be 
legally justifiable reasons for reversing, or that it could be a form of

archaelogy, but the original statement did not suggest these cases.

Now that your context, meaning, and intent are clearly defined,
it's evident you should not take umbrage with the description of
reversers as scribes and relics as those terms do not apply to you.

Besides, illegitimate reversers can't complain about being insulted because 
they run
the risk of being exposed. And then their contacts can be investigated
for possible license violations.

Reversing to exploit security weakness is most likely very effective. I
agree with you that securing by keeping software closed is folly.
Opening the software does not make it secure either.

I return to my original point: Keeping software closed is done only when 
you can't figure out how to have it open.  The point that launched this 
sub-discussion was that Asterisk has a dual license and OpenPBX does not.  
The underlying assumption is that the commercial license for Asterisk is 
for a closed source super-implementation of the project. Could this be a 
competitive advantage? As you point out, there are certainly no security

advantages.  There could be some commercial advantages that currently
exist for Asterisk that might be altered with the presence of OpenPBX.

 

The sometimes valid reason for closed source commercial versions is that 
you can't provide affordable support for a moving target. It's not 
entirely valid in the case of asterisk. Count the config files and the 
number of things in those config files a customer can modify. So even if 
we know he has the exact same binary as our reference version there can 
be how many different configurations out there to support? Answer is 
some big number that just gets bigger as more copies are sold.


I haven't looked at the ABE license. I wonder if it allows reversing. I 
can see where reversing is needed. Somebody wants to move from ABE to 
locally compiled asterisk. They hire me to build an asterisk from the 
gpl that behaves the same as the ABE they have been using. First thing I 
would have to do is examine the ABE license and see if it is permissable 
to do that the fastest way I know because the fastest way I know would 
use some reversal techniques to match the binaries with the right 
compile options and patch sets.


___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
  http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

I don't know, after looking at their roadmap I don't get it. It
must be the asterisk commit policies that are driving this. They
have some good ideas, but they are going about this the wrong way if
their goal is to create a successful fork of asterisk.

Chris





___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-08 Thread tim panton



On 8 Oct 2005, at 09:49, snacktime wrote:

I don't know, after looking at their roadmap I don't get it.  It  
must be the asterisk commit policies that are driving this.  They  
have some good ideas, but they are going about this the wrong way  
if their goal is to create a successful fork of asterisk.



If I remember right, OpenPBX folks feel that Digium diverged from the  
'right path' when they released ABE.
OpenPBX is a response to that. Check on the archives around the ABE  
announcement to get a

flavor.

I'm passing _no_ judgement, except to say that some useful projects  
have been started

for eccentric reasons.

I started our SNMP stack as the result of someone saying 'Java can't  
do that' and I just had

to prove him wrong :-)

Tim.
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
  http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-08 Thread Paul


Mike M wrote:


On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 09:45:53PM -0400, Paul wrote:
 

Also consider that there are situations where 100% open source is never 
allowed. Check out visa/mastercard processor certification for a good 
example. Digium dual licensing availability means I could actually stand 
a chance of using asterisk as the basis for systems used by military and 
law enforcement in applications that require extremely high security.
   



There is a popular vendor of closed source products whose security has been 
compromised often. The security of OpenSSH is well established. 

Reading this list iwe learn that the open source version of Asterisk is 
currently being used by military personnel.


Asterisk offers ways for users to implement eavesdropping applications which
undermines the goal of attaining extremely high security.

Open source is for sharing if that's feasible and closed source is not.
Dual licensing is for both.

 

My point was not to argue that closed source enhances security. I was 
just pointing out that there are situations where the customer will not 
accept open source.


Credit card processing would be a good example. You could design *-based 
systems for both the client(merchant) and server(processor) functions 
but last I knew visa/mc would not certify open source solutions.


___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
  http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 07:41:48AM -0400, Paul wrote:

 Credit card processing would be a good example. You could design *-based 
 systems for both the client(merchant) and server(processor) functions 
 but last I knew visa/mc would not certify open source solutions.

Note that you can use whatever license you want for an application that
connects to Asterisk via AGI or the manager interface, regardless of
whether or not visa/mc would accept free software.

-- 
Tzafrir Cohen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | VIM is
http://tzafrir.org.il |   | a Mutt's  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |   |  best
ICQ# 16849755 |   | friend
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-08 Thread Paul


Tzafrir Cohen wrote:


On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 07:41:48AM -0400, Paul wrote:

 

Credit card processing would be a good example. You could design *-based 
systems for both the client(merchant) and server(processor) functions 
but last I knew visa/mc would not certify open source solutions.
   



Note that you can use whatever license you want for an application that
connects to Asterisk via AGI or the manager interface, regardless of
whether or not visa/mc would accept free software.

 

My guess is that they would object to anything readable by humans. I 
would be writing c for things easily handled by shell scripts.


I find that amusing. I have a lot of experience with disassembly. I have 
even reverse-engineered machine language code that ran on custom 
processors which means you have to reverse-engineer the instruction set 
as part of the task.


Closed source might delay the cracker but it also delays pre-crack and 
post-crack countermeasures.


___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
  http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 09:20:07AM -0400, Paul wrote:
 Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
 
 On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 07:41:48AM -0400, Paul wrote:
 
  
 
 Credit card processing would be a good example. You could design *-based 
 systems for both the client(merchant) and server(processor) functions 
 but last I knew visa/mc would not certify open source solutions.

 
 
 Note that you can use whatever license you want for an application that
 connects to Asterisk via AGI or the manager interface, regardless of
 whether or not visa/mc would accept free software.
 
  
 
 My guess is that they would object to anything readable by humans. I 
 would be writing c for things easily handled by shell scripts.

PERL included? ;-)

 
 I find that amusing. I have a lot of experience with disassembly. I have 
 even reverse-engineered machine language code that ran on custom 
 processors which means you have to reverse-engineer the instruction set 
 as part of the task.
 
 Closed source might delay the cracker but it also delays pre-crack and 
 post-crack countermeasures.

AGI can't be written in assembly!

Anyone up to the task? ;-)

-- 
Tzafrir Cohen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | VIM is
http://tzafrir.org.il |   | a Mutt's  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |   |  best
ICQ# 16849755 |   | friend
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-08 Thread Mike M

On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 09:20:07AM -0400, Paul wrote:
 
 I find that amusing. I have a lot of experience with disassembly. I have 
 even reverse-engineered machine language code that ran on custom 
 processors which means you have to reverse-engineer the instruction set 
 as part of the task.
 
I think your argument is: Don't require or offer closed source
applications since they can be cracked.

Similarly we shouldn't lock our doors when we leave home because they
can be overridden.

Locks, like closed source, are legal barriers that work most of the
time for their intended purpose.

The discussion of licensing issues on forking Asterisk should assume
everyone understands and follows the applicable legal guidelines on 
software licensing.

The earlier point was Asterisk with its commercial license option, and 
presumably closed source traits, will be required some situations. 
Having closed source as component of a certified solution is topical 
ointment enjoyed by purveyors of certificates.  If this is true then 
OpenPBX, lacking a similar license option could be at a competitive 
disadvantage.

But what if OpenPBX attains features that are desireable but uncertifiable
because the closed source option does not exist?  Then we'll be living in
interesting times ( http://www.noblenet.org/reference/inter.htm ).

 Closed source might delay the cracker but it also delays pre-crack and 
 post-crack countermeasures.

What's the alternative?  Open source?  Cracking is unnecessary with open
source.

-- 
Mike

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 11:59:04AM -0400, Mike M wrote:
 On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 09:20:07AM -0400, Paul wrote:

  Closed source might delay the cracker but it also delays pre-crack and 
  post-crack countermeasures.
 
 What's the alternative?  Open source?  Cracking is unnecessary with open
 source.

Search a bit about security by obscurity. Basically if the security of
your system depends on a secret you can't easily change, it will get
exposed sooner or later. So you should design it to withstand such
leakage. E.g: change a password if it was exposed.

-- 
Tzafrir Cohen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | VIM is
http://tzafrir.org.il |   | a Mutt's  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |   |  best
ICQ# 16849755 |   | friend
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-08 Thread Rich Adamson


  Nice smartass remark... of course anyone can register a domain name.
 
  Is forking asterisk legal?  Of course it is!  Asterisk is under the GPL,
  which means that anyone can fork it at any time for any reason.
 
  Look at this in a positive light... many open source projects have
  forked, and the branches almost always end up feeding on one another.
 
 The difference in this case being of course that OpenPBX can happily continue 
 to feed on any good developments (code wise) that happens in Asterisk but due 
 to Digium's dual license restrictions Asterisk will not be able to feed on 
 code that goes into OpenPBX. This means (and this is already the case if you 
 look at the source tree) that other issues aside, OpenPBX should progress 
 quicker in the long term. (That is if you assume that there is good code in 
 Asterisk that the OpenPBX developers wish to use and visa versa)

I'm certainly not an expert on this topic, but if OpenPBX stays with
GPL, it would appear that asterisk could use any piece developed under
OpenPBX (unless someone there puts restrictions on individual pieces).


___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-08 Thread asterisk



   Nice smartass remark... of course anyone can register a domain name.
  
   Is forking asterisk legal?  Of course it is!  Asterisk is under the
GPL,
   which means that anyone can fork it at any time for any reason.
  
   Look at this in a positive light... many open source projects have
   forked, and the branches almost always end up feeding on one another.
 
  The difference in this case being of course that OpenPBX can happily
continue
  to feed on any good developments (code wise) that happens in Asterisk
but due
  to Digium's dual license restrictions Asterisk will not be able to feed
on
  code that goes into OpenPBX. This means (and this is already the case if
you
  look at the source tree) that other issues aside, OpenPBX should
progress
  quicker in the long term. (That is if you assume that there is good code
in
  Asterisk that the OpenPBX developers wish to use and visa versa)

 I'm certainly not an expert on this topic, but if OpenPBX stays with
 GPL, it would appear that asterisk could use any piece developed under
 OpenPBX (unless someone there puts restrictions on individual pieces).

Yes they could (I am no expert either) but they can only use it in the GPL
version, not in the ABE version.


___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-08 Thread Tony Hoyle


Rich Adamson wrote:


I'm certainly not an expert on this topic, but if OpenPBX stays with
GPL, it would appear that asterisk could use any piece developed under
OpenPBX (unless someone there puts restrictions on individual pieces).


No, since Asterisk requires that copyright be assigned to Digium for all 
patches. Submitters to OpenPBX may be unwilling to do this, especially 
since that's one of the main reasons for its existance...


Tony
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
  http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-08 Thread Kevin P. Fleming


Rich Adamson wrote:


I'm certainly not an expert on this topic, but if OpenPBX stays with
GPL, it would appear that asterisk could use any piece developed under
OpenPBX (unless someone there puts restrictions on individual pieces).


Only if the copyright holder(s) of that code choose to disclaim its use 
by Digium.

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
  http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-08 Thread Kevin P. Fleming


Tony Hoyle wrote:

No, since Asterisk requires that copyright be assigned to Digium for all 
patches. Submitters to OpenPBX may be unwilling to do this, especially 
since that's one of the main reasons for its existance...


Please stop spreading misinformation. We have addressed this at least 
four times in the last six months on this list.


Digium does NOT require copyright assignment for contributions to the 
Asterisk tree.


Digium does require either that the code be public domain (unrestricted 
use), or that Digium be granted a license to reuse the code at our 
discretion (the disclaimer).

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
  http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-08 Thread Steve Kennedy

On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 08:43:07PM +0300, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:

 On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 11:59:04AM -0400, Mike M wrote:
  On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 09:20:07AM -0400, Paul wrote:
   Closed source might delay the cracker but it also delays pre-crack and 
   post-crack countermeasures.
  What's the alternative?  Open source?  Cracking is unnecessary with open
  source.
 Search a bit about security by obscurity. Basically if the security of
 your system depends on a secret you can't easily change, it will get
 exposed sooner or later. So you should design it to withstand such
 leakage. E.g: change a password if it was exposed.

As this was related to Mastercard/Visa, they can allow open source,
however the software has to be certified to meet their security specs,
which may be harder to accomplish for open source.

Steve

-- 
NetTek Ltd  Fax +44-(0)20 7483 2455
Skype / In  stevekennedyuk / UK +442088167166 / US +13106518226
Vonage UK +442079932612 / US +13108577715 / UK mob 07775 755503
Personal Blog http://stevekennedy.blogspot.com
Euro Tech News Blog http://eurotechnews.blogspot.com
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

On 10/8/05, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike M wrote:On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 09:45:53PM -0400, Paul wrote:Also consider that there are situations where 100% open source is neverallowed. Check out visa/mastercard processor certification for a good
example. Digium dual licensing availability means I could actually standa chance of using asterisk as the basis for systems used by military andlaw enforcement in applications that require extremely high security.
There is a popular vendor of closed source products whose security has beencompromised often. The security of OpenSSH is well established.Reading this list iwe learn that the open source version of Asterisk is
currently being used by military personnel.Asterisk offers ways for users to implement eavesdropping applications whichundermines the goal of attaining extremely high security.Open source is for sharing if that's feasible and closed source is not.
Dual licensing is for both.My point was not to argue that closed source enhances security. I wasjust pointing out that there are situations where the customer will notaccept open source.
Credit card processing would be a good example. You could design *-basedsystems for both the client(merchant) and server(processor) functionsbut last I knew visa/mc would not certify open source solutions.

Off topic but wanted to correct this.. Its not the software that
has to be certified, it's the merchant (or payment processor). Ya
you can pay a security auditor to look at your software and say that
it's compliant, but it doesn't really mean anything. If you are a
qualifying merchant or payment processor you would still have to go
through the complete audit even if you used 'certified'
software. Also, as a merchant you either have to go
through the full audit yourself, or use a certified payment
gateway. You cannot for example use 'certified' software as a
merchant and connect directly to the bank networks without going
through the full audit yourself at an average cost of around $20,000.

Chris

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

On 10/8/05, Kevin P. Fleming [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tony Hoyle wrote: No, since Asterisk requires that copyright be assigned to Digium for all patches. Submitters to OpenPBX may be unwilling to do this, especially since that's one of the main reasons for its existance...
Please stop spreading misinformation. We have addressed this at leastfour times in the last six months on this list.Digium does NOT require copyright assignment for contributions to theAsterisk tree.
Digium does require either that the code be public domain (unrestricteduse), or that Digium be granted a license to reuse the code at ourdiscretion (the disclaimer).
Being that Digium wants to be able to sell a commercial version, I
don't see how they could have been more accomodating then
this. Digium can only put in their commercial version what
they themselves have written, or what others have freely given them to
use under the public domain. The only people that would
have a problem with this are the one that believe so strongly in the
GPL that it's the only license they will permit to be used for their
contributions.. They won't be happy unless everyone else does
things their way. They wouldn't be happy if asterisk was BSD or
MIT licensed either. 

Chris

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-08 Thread Tony Hoyle


snacktime wrote:



Being that Digium wants to be able to sell a commercial version, I don't 
see how they could have been more accomodating then this.   Digium can 

They could just use the GPL as is, since they chose the license in the 
first place.. they clearly have no issues with it.


They already have the rights to use the code granted by the GPL - that's 
not what the disclaimer is for.


The disclaimer gives them the same rights as the owner so they can 
relicense the contributed code under a non-GPL license for commercial 
reasons.  Not everyone is happy with that, clearly.


TBH I'd rather digium had chosen something like BSD to start with and 
avoided all the GPL politics but the situation we have is the one we have.


Tony
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
  http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

2005-10-08 Thread Dinesh Nair




On 10/07/05 23:28 Jon Pounder said the following:

There are people out there who wish to contribute, and not have their work
lost on an individual project website since they do not choose to accept
digium's terms to contribute to asterisk. This gives them an opportunity
to do so, and have their work aggregated with everyone else in the same
category, so it is one stop shopping for users.


that makes a lot of sense, considering that many have voiced similar 
opinions here in the past. however i would urge the openpbx.org folk to not 
diverge too much from the main asterisk code base, so as to ensure a proper 
stream for it.


too much divergence and we have two pieces of software competing for each 
other.


--
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  |
+=+
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
  http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org

On 10/8/05, Tony Hoyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snacktime wrote: Being that Digium wants to be able to sell a commercial version, I don't see how they could have been more accomodating then this. Digium canThey could just use the GPL as is, since they chose the license in the
first place.. they clearly have no issues with it.They already have the rights to use the code granted by the GPL - that'snot what the disclaimer is for.The disclaimer gives them the same rights as the owner so they can
relicense the contributed code under a non-GPL license for commercialreasons.Not everyone is happy with that, clearly.
I understand, that's why I said 'Being that Digium wants to be able to sell a commercial version'.
TBH I'd rather digium had chosen something like BSD to start with andavoided all the GPL politics but the situation we have is the one we have.

Agreed.

___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: www.openpbx.org