http://versafon.com/versafonweb/Software.jsp
Essentially it's a wrapper around inbound socket interface, not all
events supported yet, and not all event parameters/variables. It's multi
threaded and scaled well in testing.
We offer commercial support and development for FreeSwitch as well.
uhm... nice! But why not MPL license (the same as freeswitch)?
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 04:06, paul.d...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://versafon.com/versafonweb/Software.jsp
>
> Essentially it's a wrapper around inbound socket interface, not all
> events supported yet, and not all event parameters/vari
Because they probably want a stronger copyleft license?
I prefer the GPL because of that reason.
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Raffaele P. Guidi <
raffaele.p.gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> uhm... nice! But why not MPL license (the same as freeswitch)?
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 04:06, paul.d...
Yes, that's one of the reasons. Another point is that GPL v.3 is defined
more clearly from legal perspective, at least from our legal adviser
point of view.
Diego Viola wrote:
> Because they probably want a stronger copyleft license?
>
> I prefer the GPL because of that reason.
>
> On Sat, Jun 2
I still say why not MPL or at the very least MPL/GPL?
/b
On Jun 20, 2009, at 9:37 AM, paul.degt wrote:
> Yes, that's one of the reasons. Another point is that GPL v.3 is
> defined
> more clearly from legal perspective, at least from our legal adviser
> point of view.
>
> Diego Viola wrote:
>>
As I mentioned the decision was influenced by our legal adviser. And it
probably can be relicensed as MPL/GPL, but why?
My understanding is that for an end user which wants to use a free open
source software there should be absolutely no difference between GPL and
MPL.
But if any one has has any
There actually are issues between the GPL and MPL :P
/b
On Jun 20, 2009, at 11:12 AM, paul.degt wrote:
> source software there should be absolutely no difference between GPL
> and
> MPL.
___
Freeswitch-users mailing list
Freeswitch-users@lists.free
Not unless you combining GPL and MPL code in one binary, which I find
highly improbable in case of FreeSwitch.
And even in this case there seems to be a workaround:
"However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program (or
parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well.
License is less important in a socket interface lib.
Its not really a big deal what license it is guys.
However, I did create a BSD ESL lib distributed with FS to make sure nobody
would have any license problems connecting to our stuff.
If you don't like this lib consider using swig on the wrapper
Well, GPL for a library is a dead end. Nobody will use it unless for open
source projects. I would consider any possible choice before using it.
Regards,
Raffaele
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 18:12, paul.degt wrote:
> As I mentioned the decision was influenced by our legal adviser. And it
> probab
That's rather bold statement and indicates lack of knowledge on the
subject . I would advise you to look at
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html on GPL information.
In fact proprietary applications can use/modify GPL software with no
limitations or obligations towards authors. The
Right, fair and easy to deal with. And also to NOT deal with - as would any
developer working in a commercial company. Again, I would consider any
possible choice before using it.
Regards,
Raffaele
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 22:15, paul.degt wrote:
> That's rather bold statement and indicates l
We don't need to argue licenses the topic is way too subjective. To each his
own. Let's concentrate on the code and the cool features we can make in the
future.
On Jun 20, 2009 4:00 PM, "Raffaele P. Guidi"
wrote:
Right, fair and easy to deal with. And also to NOT deal with - as would any
develop
paul.degt wrote:
> Yes, that's one of the reasons. Another point is that GPL v.3 is defined
> more clearly from legal perspective, at least from our legal adviser
> point of view.
>
While the legal status of MPL is widely considered to be vague, is GPL 3
any better? GPL 2 is pretty sound, and
I have Fortune 1000 clients myself, and frankly speaking in real world
they don't even care what type of license the free stuff has. Why?
Simple. Because 90% of the time these companies buy commercial support
and being a commercial customer it's very easy for them to get a
commercial version
of
15 matches
Mail list logo
