On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 10:12 -0500, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: > ----- trixter aka Bret McDanel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 09:12 -0500, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: > > > ----- trixter aka Bret McDanel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Since the code does appear to be very much identical to code that > > was > > > > denied to exist in the first place, but links were posted that > > makes > > > > it > > > > appear identical in many ways. Kinda makes one wonder what the > > real > > > > story is. > > > > > > Nobody denied that this code existed. > > > > > I never said that anyone denied the code existed, stop rearranging > > what > > was said to suit your needs. Please read what is actually said > > instead > > of living in fantasy land. It would make everything so much easier. > > Your own quote, five lines above mine, unless I am mistaken, clearly states > that you believe the code is nearly identical to something that Digium denied > the existence of until proven otherwise. >
Yes and I qualified that specifically talking about g.723, and the whole issue that followed was over the module that was released and my admission that I did not recall the word 'binary' that you used as a qualifier in your post originally denying that digium released such a module. I had thought that these emails would have been read in context and that they would not be picked apart, and that it was assumed that they are not single entities but part of a dialog. I will try to avoid making those mistakes when communicating to digium folk in the future. > > Kinda makes one wonder what the real story is when there is so much > > hostility over such a little issue. > > Where do you see hostility? We posted a very simple, direct and > straightforward response denying that the code that was posted was the code > that we use to build G.729 binary codec modules, and that in the interests of > not being sued over potential copyright or licensing violations, we were > removing the links to it from our mailing list archives. There was no > hostility involved on our part whatsoever. Your responses seemed a bit hostile, as they have in the past, whenever something comes up that digium wants squashed. Like last year I asked 'is there a list of what I have to do to make asteirsk gpl compliant'. That was right before the FSF called you up (or at least that is what they told me becuase they wanted to urge digium to change some of its policies) regarding the GPL issues (the same people that told me that some of the digium policies regarding the GPL were invalid). Now the FSF cant force people to only use the GPL accurately, and they made this clear to me, and since code is disclaimed it becomes hard (read impossible) to say digium violated the GPL (something I did not say then nor am I saying now, however you accused me of saying it last year when I asked what *I* had to do). I think perhaps some of the hostility that occured then is some of the same hostility that is coming out now, but meh. > Digium did not ask to get links removed from any other sites, to my > knowledge, and if any Digium employee did so, it was done without consulting > with management or our legal team. If that occurred, I would appreciate being > notified of it off-list so that it can be dealt with appropriately. > Ahh, makes me wonder what the real story was behind these comments from you personally: ----- James Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why did Digium request that article from digg be removed if it was > linking to you list archive which has been corrected already? That was done before we had a complete plan in place to deal with this, and the mailing list archives had not yet been modified. I guess I just inferred that digium had infact asked them to be removed. My bad. > Since the vast majority of the code that was posted did not claim to come > from Digium, and was clearly from a third party that everyone is aware of > (and who does not provide any license agreement that allows redistribution of > that source code), it is very clear to nearly everyone involved that posting > that code was in violation of at least one party's copyright. > It would have to be in violation of a license not a copyright. Without knowing the license involved, I cannot say whether this was 'very clear' or not. -- Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel Belfast IE +44 28 9099 6461 DE +49 801 777 555 3402 Utrecht NL +31 306 553058 US WA +1 360 207 0479 US NY +1 516 687 5200 FreeWorldDialup: 635378 http://www.trxtel.com the VoIP provider that pays you!
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-biz mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
