There is no "limited GPL". It's either GPL or not, and DUNDi *is* GPL.
Mark
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, John Todd wrote:
At 11:15 AM -1000 on 4/19/05, Randy Bush wrote:
does DUNDi not have the additional problem of not being open-license?
randy
While I am not familiar with the intricacies of GPL vs. limited GPL vs. [fill
in license X], I will say that the DUNDi protocol was developed with the
intention of becoming an RFC, so I would hope that the intent was to make the
protocol a license-free effort, even though there is certainly good precedent
for that not being the case on other standards proposals
<coughMICROSOFTcough>. While the Asterisk implementation of DUNDi may
currently be under the Asterisk/Digium modified/limited GPL, I don't know if
the protocol itself is under the same license scheme. I would suspect "No",
but simple questions like this tend to take up far too much time on various
mailing lists, so no assumption is safe. I typically delete those
conversation threads, as they typically contain hysteria, ignorance, or
arrogance in varying blends and quantities. I would suggest that everyone
who has an interest in such things to talk to a lawyer for firm determination
thereof, or move to a country where such questions are legally irrelevant.
I simply wish everyone would move to BSD licenses, to avoid these headaches
and FUD, though I'm certain even that could be argued ad infinitum. Welcome
to the planet of lawyers.
References:
http://www.asterisk.org/
http://www.dundi.com/
JT
_______________________________________________
Dundi mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/dundi
_______________________________________________
Dundi mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/dundi
