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
[email protected]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
