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 r
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
> >
>
t;[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 d
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 properl
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
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
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
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, yo
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
>
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
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 s
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 m
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
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 so
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 impossi
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 vot
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 no
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 openh32
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
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 t
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
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 m
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
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
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
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
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
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/nam
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,
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* ca
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
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
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 ri
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
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:
Selectiv
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 say
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 illeg
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 lon
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 publi
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 pi
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. man
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
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
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.
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.
I
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 t
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
> -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 - Ope
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 Aster
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 ar
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 Lo
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
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
> > > t
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 c
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 s
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
da
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
af
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 pr
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
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 resp
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
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
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.
--
Reg
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
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 sa
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!
___
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 m
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 so
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
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
'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
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.
[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
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/distrib
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 la
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 d
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
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
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 fr
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 mis
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
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
o
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
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 AST
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 fr
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 wit
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 se
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://
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 un
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
wh
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
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
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 Aste
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 th
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
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
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
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 linke
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
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
Asteris
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
