how was your user experience with Linphone on the desktop? -lee
On Friday, June 5, 2015, Hans-Christoph Steiner <[email protected]> wrote: > > What about Linphone? It seems a lot easier to use and setup, and is also > multi-platform. I think if there was a standard way to provision a SIP > client > using a URL, that would help a lot. > > Since otr4j is free software, we can just fork and ignore BlueJimp's CLA, > as > we have always done. But it would be even better if all parties used a > single > fork, and we're working on that now. (that's the core idea of starting the > otr4j/otrj4 repo) > > .hc > > Lee Azzarello: > > Heya, > > > > I just picked up on this thread now, two months too late but I would > > like to chime in about my support of ostel.co. I continue to support > > the public service, which has 41K registered users and is going > > strong. As you may know, end user support is weak due to the project > > being a low priority for both GP and Series Digital, though the user > > base is active. > > > > I've done a number of private deployments of the ostel stack. It's > > become a pretty standard procedure. My base rate is $3000 and it takes > > about two days. That said I haven't done any development on the > > backend stack in over a year. The primary reason is that the client > > application landscape, while abundant is a mess. Client support is > > also the more frequently asked question and it the most important area > > for user interest. Jitsi continues to be the most fully featured > > client as well as the most frequent request for user support. We at > > Series Digital have discussed developing Jitsi to have a more > > contemporary user experience, but the complexity of the code base as > > well as a growing desire for WebRTC support has pushed that project > > down on the priority list. > > > > So to me this acquisition by a well know enterprise software company > > is a good sign for improved client support. Unfortunately it's a bad > > sign for freedom. I'm committed to supporting the backend stack as the > > world's only fully open source end-to-end secure SIP system. I'm > > interested to see where Atlassian takes the development of the WebRTC > > front end, especially regarding encryption. > > > > That's my two sense. It seems the CLA is a very bad sign for freedom > > and I agree with Hans that moving away from otr4j in GP applications > > would be a good move. > > > > Regards, > > Lee > > > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner > > <[email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Tom Ritter: > >>> On 22 April 2015 at 08:41, Hans-Christoph Steiner > >>> <[email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> This is sounding not so promising for the future of jitsi as free > software. > >>>> Atlassian seems to have no free software projects of their own > whatsoever, and > >>>> there page about "open source" is basically a sales pitch: > >>>> > >>>> https://www.atlassian.com/opensource > >>>> > >>>> more here, it looks like this is probably the Atlassian press > release, more or > >>>> less: > >>>> > http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/21/atlassian-acquires-open-source-video-conferencing-company-bluejimp-to-power-hipchats-video-chat/ > >>>> > >>> > >>> If they're going to use Jitsi's (open) source code in their closed > >>> source environment, and build on it without releasing the > >>> contributions (which is possible as they can relicense any additional > >>> developments to it) - it makes me wonder if past contributors to Jitsi > >>> can assert copyright over their contributions. (I assume Jitsi wasn't > >>> requiring contributor agreements like some projects do to clear > >>> similar hurdles.) I don't know much about this part of open source > >>> licensing though. > >>> > >>> -tom > >> > >> BlueJimp has required a CLA for contributions to their jitsi > repositories: > >> http://bluejimp.com/bca.pdf > >> > >> With this clause: > >> > >> "you hereby assign to us joint ownership, and to the extent that such > >> assignment is or becomes invalid, ineffective or unenforceable, you > hereby > >> grant to us a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide, > no-charge, > >> royalty-free, unrestricted license to exercise all rights under those > >> copyrights. This includes, at our option, the right to sublicense these > same > >> rights to third parties through multiple levels of sublicensees or other > >> licensing arrangements; " > >> > >> Which seems to me to say that they can relicense any of the jitsi > source code > >> as they please. That's part of my objection to having otr4j governed > by their > >> CLA: > >> > >> https://github.com/jitsi/otr4j/issues/15 > >> > >> .hc > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PGP fingerprint: 5E61 C878 0F86 295C E17D 8677 9F0F E587 374B BE81 > >> https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x9F0FE587374BBE81 > >> _______________________________________________ > >> List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/guardian-dev > >> To unsubscribe, email: [email protected] > <javascript:;> > > _______________________________________________ > > List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/guardian-dev > > To unsubscribe, email: [email protected] > <javascript:;> > > > > -- > PGP fingerprint: 5E61 C878 0F86 295C E17D 8677 9F0F E587 374B BE81 > https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x9F0FE587374BBE81 >
_______________________________________________ List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/guardian-dev To unsubscribe, email: [email protected]
