This is a very interesting converation, but it seems like the BIZ forum might be more appropriate...
Michael Crown Managing Partner www.thevoipconnection.com 321.989.6728 ext. 611 sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 11:30 AM > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Asterisk forking, Was: > Digium Website Update:Asterisk Business Edition > > Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: > > >On Saturday 11 June 2005 19:51, Lee Howard wrote: > > > > > >>I don't think that "lack of mindshare" completely defines > the reasons > >>behind Asterisk fork failures. It places all of the blame on the > >>forkers. I think the truth, though, is that they not only > fail due to > >>"lack of mindshare" but also due to competition from Digium's own > >>Asterisk community. Forks are not succeeding, yes, but > Digium has a > >>hand in that... of course they do. > >> > >> > > > >I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm curious: how does Digium have a > >hand in a fork failing? > > > > > > That's what I tried to explain in my last post, in particular > after this first statement. Forks enter a "hostile > competition" rather than a "healthy competition". > > >>I've heard more talk about Asterisk forks than I've ever > heard about > >>forks of any other other open-source project. I think that > this says > >>something about how difficult-to-swallow Digium's > dual-license decree > >>is for a lot of prospective contributors/developers. > >> > >> > > > >I disagree; if it were that hard to swallow the project > would either be > >90% digium-written (it's not) or it would be a total flop > (again it's not). > > > > If you (or someone else reading this post) is in a position > to give statistics on what percentage of the code is > Digium-written (or Digium-rewritten - in the case where a > disclaimer is not obtained for some unpatented work and > Digium rewrites the work independently) then I would be > thrilled to see it. > > >>We see this happen all of the time with the Linux kernel. > It happens > >>with HylaFAX. It happened with X. I'm sure it happens a lot with > >>many other open-source software projects. It happens easily and > >>usually is a "healthy" process because the playing field is even. > >> > >> > > > >Agreed. But where are the successful Asterisk forks? > > > > > > I don't know of any successful Asterisk forks (unless > http://www.asteriskwin32.com is considered "successful" - > although I'll admit that I'm not really in-the-know). But > this was my point: that the way things were set up by Digium > makes a successful fork difficult. > Digium always has an upper-hand, and things were set up > intentionally this way. Again, I don't take particular issue > with this. I'm just trying to explain why forking Asterisk > would not be a particularly easy task. > > >>Of course, this "healthy" forking cannot be done with > Asterisk because > >>Digium will not accept any non-disclaimed code into their > repository. > >> > >> > > > >... What you'd described about distribution-maintained patches has > >nothing to do with this. Digium could take a > distribution-maintained > >patch and rewrite it into Asterisk proper under the dual license (as > >could any other > >contributor) and you'd still gain the benefit of the patch. I'm not > >sure I see where you're going here. > > > > > > If you (or someone else reading this) has the necessary > information to provide statistics on how what percentage of > the code comes from rewrites of non-disclaimed code, then I > would be particularly interested in hearing it. I suspect, > though, that it is a rather small - perhaps insignificant - > amount. But, yes, providing that there is not a patent > involved - yes, the work could be rewritten and integrated. > But this was my point: that given the right environment forks > can benefit from each other. > > The one thing that an Asterisk fork can never do, though, is > relicense itself. Only Diguim can do that. If Digium had > wanted an equal footing in this regard then Asterisk would be > LGPL or BSD or something a bit more liberal. So if I'm a > manufacturer of PBXes and have some proprietary IP that I do > not wish to be GPLed, then if I want to use Asterisk somehow, > then I can really only work with Digium for licensing. All > of the other forks will be license-prohibitive. > > >I have to admit that I know quite a few people with their > own modules > >and such to replace what they feel is bad code and just won't > >contribute it back to Asterisk due to the friction they've received > >about the patch. I, on the other hand, tend to bitch loud and > >continuously enough and wear them down to the point of > accepting it. > >:-) > > > > > > So we're not in disagreement, it would seem. Getting code > contributions into Digium's Asterisk codebase is not > something that many average people are going to want to > undergo. From what I've seen, "friction" is a bit light of a > term for it. It seems much more hostile than that. > And, that's often even before the disclaimer hurdle is reached. > > Lee. > > > _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
