Steve Totaro wrote:
I have no idea what the issues here are, nor do I care but I do have a
question about this statement "Since you are selling support for this
script, that qualifies as commercial
use and is expressly prohibited by the micro-license included in the
original script." Is this an accurate statement? Don't alot of firms
provide support for opensource software? I thought it was only
considered commercial use if it is sold as a product and source was
not supplied. I have not read the microlicense but couldnt Microsoft
include such a microlicense and prevent any other firms from
supporting MS products?
Thanks,
Steve
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
Asterisk-Users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Under "normal" circumstances, you would be perfectly right. The concern
here is that this is open-source that was intentionally or ignorantly
dis-credited and modified, possibly broken. For this modified/broken
script, this dishonest company now offers paid support. This would
classify as commercial (ab-) use -- it's akin to distributing asterisk
as your own, without giving credit to Digium or Mark Spencer, and thus
intentionally closing other, unpaid, support venues.
The possibility that OCG/Generation D may have broken the script in an
attempt to "fix" an error that wasn't there, calls into question the
good intentions they claim. The further fact that the "many times" I
was allegedly contacted turned out to be a single
"how-about-this-feature?" email, solidifies my conviction that
profiteering was their first and only intention. This was -- and, hey,
OCG listen! -- *IS* specifically forbidden regarding this script.
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
Asterisk-Users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
