Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
Kevin Walsh wrote: Brian West [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or better yet.. modify the disclaimer like I and a few others did to say that the only thing you will disclaim are things you post on the bug tracker! NO UPDATES, NO CHANGES, NO NOTHING! If its not posted under your user on mantis IT IS NOT DISCLAIMED! That would seem to be a reasonable suggestion. That's what I did. I modified the disclaimer to only apply to stuff I post to bugs.digium.com under a specific userid. I did this to keep stuff I post to the mailing lists or on the web from being accidently disclaimed. -- Eric Wieling * BTEL Consulting * 504-210-3699 x2120 ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
Eric Wieling aka ManxPower [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Walsh wrote: Brian West [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or better yet.. modify the disclaimer like I and a few others did to say that the only thing you will disclaim are things you post on the bug tracker! NO UPDATES, NO CHANGES, NO NOTHING! If its not posted under your user on mantis IT IS NOT DISCLAIMED! That would seem to be a reasonable suggestion. That's what I did. I modified the disclaimer to only apply to stuff I post to bugs.digium.com under a specific userid. I did this to keep stuff I post to the mailing lists or on the web from being accidently disclaimed. Most people probably are not aware that that's an option. I certainly wasn't aware of it. If the owner accepts custom agreements, rather than just one of the two published versions, then that's a good start. -- _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/ K e v i n W a l s h _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
Kevin Walsh wrote: Most people probably are not aware that that's an option. I certainly wasn't aware of it. If the owner accepts custom agreements, rather than just one of the two published versions, then that's a good start. Negotiation is always an option; we frequently get disclaimers with slightly modified wording and/or additional clauses, and Mark personally reviews every one of them. The worst that would happen is that he would disallow the changes and let you know, so you can try to come up with something you are comfortable with. With that said, though, the changes need to be simple enough that we wouldn't have to send through our lawyers, for obvious reasons :-) ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
Brian West [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or better yet.. modify the disclaimer like I and a few others did to say that the only thing you will disclaim are things you post on the bug tracker! NO UPDATES, NO CHANGES, NO NOTHING! If its not posted under your user on mantis IT IS NOT DISCLAIMED! That would seem to be a reasonable suggestion. -- _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/ K e v i n W a l s h _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 10:56:42AM -0500, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: Kevin Walsh wrote: The perpetual agreement grants the owner a non-cancellable right to use changes and/or enhancements made to the Asterisk codebase as [the] owner sees fit. As any Asterisk fork would, of course, be based upon existing Asterisk code, the owner would have the automatic right to take any code they wanted and backport it into the Asterisk Binary Edition - as long as the contributor to the fork had previously signed a perpetual disclaimer at some point in the past. Nice work clipping out only the words you wanted to use there! Let's try this again, with the actual text from the disclaimer: (b) The rights made in Para. 1(a) of this Agreement applies to all past and future contributions of Contributer that constitute changes and enhancements to the Program. 2. Contributer shall report to Owner all changes and/or enhancements to the Program which are covered by this Agreement, and (to the extent known to Contributer) any outstanding rights, or claims of rights, of any person, that might be adverse to the rights of Contributer or Owner. In other words, the _only_ code that the disclaimer covers is that which the Contributer directly identifies to Digium to be covered by the disclaimer. In absolutely no way does this disclaimer give Digium the right to appropriate other changes the Contributer makes to the covered programs without their knowledge and permission. In addition, even the most liberal interpretation of these clauses still includes the words Contributer and contribution, which clearly means that the entity signing the disclaimer has sole discretion which of their changes are covered and which are not. Contribution there does not mention the main Asterisk source tree. Paragraph 1(a) defines Program as: the programs Asterisk, Gnophone, Phonecore, libiax No reference is made regarding a specific source tree. But why is such an over-broad license needed in the first place? Suppose a certain Kevin wrote a a patch to Asterisk that implements chan_telapathy (a feature that was requested by his technical support center). Kevin wants that code to be distributed with the main Asterisk codebase so to reduce maintinance costs for that channel. It is reasonable to assume that during that maitinance the code of that channel will be changed. Maybe some of its code will be used in other parts of Asterisk. Kevin also sometimes finds a bug in parts of the Asterisk code that he did not write. In that case he submits a patch. Disclaimers aside, who has the copyrights in those cases? Digium currently holds copyrights and/or is allowed to relicense the full asterisk codebase as is currently distributed in the asterisk tarballs on ftp.asterisk.org and also all the code in the asterisk CVS on cvs.digium.org (any better definition?) . Assuming digium wishes to relicense that code (and that it is OK for Kevin), Kevin can permit Digium to relicense those two specific contributions. So Kevin should have permitted Digium to relicense the current versions he submitted. If Kevin ever writes a new version of chan_telepathy and still wants it included in Asterisk, he should simply permit Digium to relicense the new code. So: a. There should be no reason for Digium to require anything about future contributions. b. The program should be well defined. A public CVS is a relatively good definition, as it is easy for others to get and save snapshots of it (not to mention that -cvs mailing list), and thus it can't be easily changed in the future. -- Tzafrir Cohen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | best ICQ# 16849755 | | friend ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 18:18 +0100, Kevin Walsh wrote: Adam Goryachev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 04:15 +0100, Kevin Walsh wrote: For this reason, I believe that if a fork were ever necessary, it would struggle to beat a distinct path away from the Asterisk Binary Edition Correct, until the point where there is MORE features being added to the forked version of asterisk than the digium version of asterisk. That can't happen, because the ABE could, and probably would, absorb all of the advances in the fork, while forging ahead with the original. Since the fork would be GPL only, if ABE 'absorbed' the new features, then it would 'become' GPL, and therefore would need to be released as GPL, and hence would no longer by ABE :) So, that can't happen. Any other ideas? The *average* feeling of the community is that they are happy with the status quo. The status quo has been disrupted with the unveiling of the Asterisk Binary Edition. ABE was released ages ago (feels that way) with a small minority group who kicked up a stink and then promptly went back to their caves. Just as you are now kicking up a new stink, this will probably happen every few months, and hopefully I won't feel inclined to reply next time (nor will anybody else) as we all learn to just ignore the people who simply want to re-hash old non-arguments... You have had your say, you have heard all the people who agree with you (was there any?) and now we can all carry on as before. When you start your fork, feel free to announce it, and we shall see where it goes. (I suspect the same place as the MSN chatroom or forum or whatever it was for asterisk that was recently announced :) Regards, Adam ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 12:00 +0300, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: Disclaimers aside, who has the copyrights in those cases? Do you actually read the emails on this list? or just like to jump right in and help the brawl continue? The disclaimers don't affect copyright, the author of the work/patch/source code retains copyright Regards, Adam ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
Tzafrir Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Disclaimers aside, who has the copyrights in those cases? Digium currently holds copyrights and/or is allowed to relicense the full asterisk codebase as is currently distributed in the asterisk tarballs on ftp.asterisk.org and also all the code in the asterisk CVS on cvs.digium.org (any better definition?) . Just to be clear, the perpetual agreement doesn't force a transfer of copyright; The author gets to keep the copyright, and can do whatever he likes with the code. The shorter disclaimer puts the copyright into the public domain. The perpetual agreement gives the owner two main rights. Firstly paragraph 1 allows the code, and all future Asterisk-related code, written by that contributor to be closed by the owner. Secondly, paragraphs 2 and 5(a) force the contributor to report all future changes and/or enhancements to save the owner the hassle of having to scour future forks looking for code that they might be interested in folding into their proprietary release. The second disclaimer (the short one) simply dumps all of your changes and enhancements into the public domain for anyone to use in a proprietary product. Of course, the only people who would know about this would be the signer and the company to which the document was sent. The short disclaimer is sufficiently woolly to allow for all future changes to a fork to be folded back into the binary release, although it doesn't include an obligation to report all such changes. Once signed, neither agreement has an exit clause or time limit, so neither of them can be cancelled. Maybe that is legal in Alabama (or Delaware), but I wouldn't really want to have to travel there to find out. -- _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/ K e v i n W a l s h _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 12:43:06AM +1000, Adam Goryachev wrote: On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 12:00 +0300, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: Disclaimers aside, who has the copyrights in those cases? Do you actually read the emails on this list? or just like to jump right in and help the brawl continue? The disclaimers don't affect copyright, the author of the work/patch/source code retains copyright That question was indeed mis-worded. But read the answer below it to see I refer to the ability to relicense, rather than to the copyrights themselves. -- Tzafrir Cohen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | best ICQ# 16849755 | | friend ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 18:18 +0100, Kevin Walsh wrote: Adam Goryachev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 04:15 +0100, Kevin Walsh wrote: For this reason, I believe that if a fork were ever necessary, it would struggle to beat a distinct path away from the Asterisk Binary Edition Correct, until the point where there is MORE features being added to the forked version of asterisk than the digium version of asterisk. That can't happen, because the ABE could, and probably would, absorb all of the advances in the fork, while forging ahead with the original. Since the fork would be GPL only, if ABE 'absorbed' the new features, then it would 'become' GPL, and therefore would need to be released as GPL, and hence would no longer by ABE :) So, that can't happen. Any other ideas? You're forgetting about the disclaimer documents. Anyone who signed the perpetual agreement and made changes and/or enhancements to the Asterisk code (a fork would still be using Asterisk code) would firstly be obliged to inform the owner, and would secondly have a prior agreement with the owner to allow them to use and close the code. That would neatly bypass the GPL and allow the new code to be folded into the Asterisk Binary Edition. -- _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/ K e v i n W a l s h _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
On 23-Jul-05, at 11:22 AM, Kevin Walsh wrote: On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 18:18 +0100, Kevin Walsh wrote: Adam Goryachev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 04:15 +0100, Kevin Walsh wrote: For this reason, I believe that if a fork were ever necessary, it would struggle to beat a distinct path away from the Asterisk Binary Edition Correct, until the point where there is MORE features being added to the forked version of asterisk than the digium version of asterisk. That can't happen, because the ABE could, and probably would, absorb all of the advances in the fork, while forging ahead with the original. Since the fork would be GPL only, if ABE 'absorbed' the new features, then it would 'become' GPL, and therefore would need to be released as GPL, and hence would no longer by ABE :) So, that can't happen. Any other ideas? You're forgetting about the disclaimer documents. Anyone who signed the perpetual agreement and made changes and/or enhancements to the Asterisk code (a fork would still be using Asterisk code) would firstly be obliged to inform the owner, and would secondly have a prior agreement with the owner to allow them to use and close the code. That would neatly bypass the GPL and allow the new code to be folded into the Asterisk Binary Edition. It's unlikely that the current pool of asterisk developers will remain static however. People change jobs, new people find asterisk interesting, people that have not contributed before start to contribute. Assuming a fork were to happen one day. Lots of current developers would stay with the Digium tree because they know it, are digium partners, think it's a better idea, already signed the disclaimer and don;t have an issue with it etc. Many new developers submitting smaller patches would not bother to sign a legal disclaimer and just submit the patch to the full GPL tree. The splinter GPL tree would likely integrate the changes faster and obviously don;t care about a disclaimer. The practicalities of tracking the changes between two source trees would just get more and more time consuming for Digium. They will want to make 100% legal sure that every change they bring into their tree comes from somebody with a disclaimer. Rewriting the missing bits with other programmers would just help the tree's diverge faster. Meanwhile a full GPL tree can just plow ahead without concern. Many companies successfully manage the commercial GPL gap. MySQL for example. The difference in this case is selling a binary only version instead of making money off just hardware and support services/contracts. At the end of the day Digium own the Asterisk trademark and in the world these days, brand name recognition is often more important than the product behind it. -bill ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
Or better yet.. modify the disclaimer like I and a few others did to say that the only thing you will disclaim are things you post on the bug tracker! NO UPDATES, NO CHANGES, NO NOTHING! If its not posted under your user on mantis IT IS NOT DISCLAIMED! /b On Jul 23, 2005, at 2:59 PM, William Lloyd wrote: On 23-Jul-05, at 11:22 AM, Kevin Walsh wrote: On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 18:18 +0100, Kevin Walsh wrote: Adam Goryachev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 04:15 +0100, Kevin Walsh wrote: For this reason, I believe that if a fork were ever necessary, it would struggle to beat a distinct path away from the Asterisk Binary Edition Correct, until the point where there is MORE features being added to the forked version of asterisk than the digium version of asterisk. That can't happen, because the ABE could, and probably would, absorb all of the advances in the fork, while forging ahead with the original. Since the fork would be GPL only, if ABE 'absorbed' the new features, then it would 'become' GPL, and therefore would need to be released as GPL, and hence would no longer by ABE :) So, that can't happen. Any other ideas? You're forgetting about the disclaimer documents. Anyone who signed the perpetual agreement and made changes and/or enhancements to the Asterisk code (a fork would still be using Asterisk code) would firstly be obliged to inform the owner, and would secondly have a prior agreement with the owner to allow them to use and close the code. That would neatly bypass the GPL and allow the new code to be folded into the Asterisk Binary Edition. It's unlikely that the current pool of asterisk developers will remain static however. People change jobs, new people find asterisk interesting, people that have not contributed before start to contribute. Assuming a fork were to happen one day. Lots of current developers would stay with the Digium tree because they know it, are digium partners, think it's a better idea, already signed the disclaimer and don;t have an issue with it etc. Many new developers submitting smaller patches would not bother to sign a legal disclaimer and just submit the patch to the full GPL tree. The splinter GPL tree would likely integrate the changes faster and obviously don;t care about a disclaimer. The practicalities of tracking the changes between two source trees would just get more and more time consuming for Digium. They will want to make 100% legal sure that every change they bring into their tree comes from somebody with a disclaimer. Rewriting the missing bits with other programmers would just help the tree's diverge faster. Meanwhile a full GPL tree can just plow ahead without concern. Many companies successfully manage the commercial GPL gap. MySQL for example. The difference in this case is selling a binary only version instead of making money off just hardware and support services/contracts. At the end of the day Digium own the Asterisk trademark and in the world these days, brand name recognition is often more important than the product behind it. -bill ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
Kevin Walsh wrote: The perpetual agreement grants the owner a non-cancellable right to use changes and/or enhancements made to the Asterisk codebase as [the] owner sees fit. As any Asterisk fork would, of course, be based upon existing Asterisk code, the owner would have the automatic right to take any code they wanted and backport it into the Asterisk Binary Edition - as long as the contributor to the fork had previously signed a perpetual disclaimer at some point in the past. Nice work clipping out only the words you wanted to use there! Let's try this again, with the actual text from the disclaimer: (b) The rights made in Para. 1(a) of this Agreement applies to all past and future contributions of Contributer that constitute changes and enhancements to the Program. 2. Contributer shall report to Owner all changes and/or enhancements to the Program which are covered by this Agreement, and (to the extent known to Contributer) any outstanding rights, or claims of rights, of any person, that might be adverse to the rights of Contributer or Owner. In other words, the _only_ code that the disclaimer covers is that which the Contributer directly identifies to Digium to be covered by the disclaimer. In absolutely no way does this disclaimer give Digium the right to appropriate other changes the Contributer makes to the covered programs without their knowledge and permission. In addition, even the most liberal interpretation of these clauses still includes the words Contributer and contribution, which clearly means that the entity signing the disclaimer has sole discretion which of their changes are covered and which are not. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
Kevin P. Fleming wrote: Kevin Walsh wrote: The perpetual agreement grants the owner a non-cancellable right to use changes and/or enhancements made to the Asterisk codebase as [the] owner sees fit. As any Asterisk fork would, of course, be based upon existing Asterisk code, the owner would have the automatic right to take any code they wanted and backport it into the Asterisk Binary Edition - as long as the contributor to the fork had previously signed a perpetual disclaimer at some point in the past. Nice work clipping out only the words you wanted to use there! Let's try this again, with the actual text from the disclaimer: Aw Kevin that's no fun; it's more fun to poke up trouble and try to turn people against Digium. Kevin Walsh and Aidan are able to see things that the rest of us cannot. Digium has duped you into associating with their evil enterprise to appropriate everyone else's hard work. I'm sure the stuff you and Mark have contributed pales in comparison with *their* contributions!! b. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
Kevin P. Fleming [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Walsh wrote: The perpetual agreement grants the owner a non-cancellable right to use changes and/or enhancements made to the Asterisk codebase as [the] owner sees fit. As any Asterisk fork would, of course, be based upon existing Asterisk code, the owner would have the automatic right to take any code they wanted and backport it into the Asterisk Binary Edition - as long as the contributor to the fork had previously signed a perpetual disclaimer at some point in the past. Nice work clipping out only the words you wanted to use there! Let's try this again, with the actual text from the disclaimer: (b) The rights made in Para. 1(a) of this Agreement applies to all past and future contributions of Contributer that constitute changes and enhancements to the Program. 2. Contributer shall report to Owner all changes and/or enhancements to the Program which are covered by this Agreement, and (to the extent known to Contributer) any outstanding rights, or claims of rights, of any person, that might be adverse to the rights of Contributer or Owner. In other words, the _only_ code that the disclaimer covers is that which the Contributer directly identifies to Digium to be covered by the disclaimer. In absolutely no way does this disclaimer give Digium the right to appropriate other changes the Contributer makes to the covered programs without their knowledge and permission. Firstly, there are no in other words about it. That is a legal document. If other words are meant then they should be stated as such - in plain English. Secondly, paragraph 2 is distinct from paragraph 1, in which paragraph 2 insists that the contributor to a fork to also report changes back to the owner. If the owner doesn't report changes then they could find themselves in trouble over a breach of the agreement, and the owner can still simply take the changes anyway, as allowed for in paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b). In addition, even the most liberal interpretation of these clauses still includes the words Contributer and contribution, which clearly means that the entity signing the disclaimer has sole discretion which of their changes are covered and which are not. If that's the intention then it should be made clear in the document. The agreement, as it stands today, contradicts your statement and I believe it has been very carefully worded to either hide its true intentions or to allow future loopholes in favour of the owner. By the way, if anyone wants to see the full text of the dangerously perpetual disclaimer, they can find it here: http://www.digium.com/disclaimer.txt Read it very carefully, or have a lawyer advise you as to its content and implications. -- _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/ K e v i n W a l s h _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
Adam Goryachev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 04:15 +0100, Kevin Walsh wrote: It has been flippantly said, a number of times, that if you don't like the situation then you can fork the project. A major fork seems (to me) to be pointless for one main reason (and a couple of lesser reasons): As I see it, anyone working on an Asterisk fork who had previously signed the dangerous disclaimer (the perpetual one) could find their changes to the fork rolled back into the Asterisk Binary Edition without any further permission being required. The perpetual agreement grants the owner a non-cancellable right to use changes and/or enhancements made to the Asterisk codebase as [the] owner sees fit. As any Asterisk fork would, of course, be based IANAL, but I assume you also have the right to revoke the agreement as relating to future patches. ie, it is non-cancellable in that I can't contribute something today, and next week change my mind. I am sure I can sign the agreement, contribute enhancements, cancel my agreement, and no longer contribute enhancements. That is not the case. The agreement makes it clear that 1(a) the signer does hereby grant, a non-exclusive, royalty-free and non-cancellable right to use changes and/or enhancements made to the programs. and 1(b) this Agreement applies to all past and future contributions of Contributer (sic). There is no provision to cancel, and furthermore, the signer specifically agrees to this arrangement by signing. For this reason, I believe that if a fork were ever necessary, it would struggle to beat a distinct path away from the Asterisk Binary Edition Correct, until the point where there is MORE features being added to the forked version of asterisk than the digium version of asterisk. That can't happen, because the ABE could, and probably would, absorb all of the advances in the fork, while forging ahead with the original. The *average* feeling of the community is that they are happy with the status quo. The status quo has been disrupted with the unveiling of the Asterisk Binary Edition. -- _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/ K e v i n W a l s h _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
[Asterisk-Users] Re: Business Edition
On 2005-07-22 11:49:50 -0400, Kevin P. Fleming [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Aidan Van Dyk wrote: So what are they planning on doing with the Google Summer of Code results? http://code.google.com/summfaq.html#what_licenses_will_i_have What licenses will I have to choose from? This depends on your mentoring organization. For instance if Google is your mentoring organization, we will require you to choose either the BSD (sans advertising), LGPL or the GPL license for your project. http://code.google.com/summfaq.html#who_owns_the_software_i_w Who owns the software I write? You or your mentoring organization must license your code under a license palatable to your mentoring organization. Some organizations will require you to assign copyright to them, but many will allow you to retain copyright. If Google is your sponsoring organization, then you keep the copyright to your code. Well, you read one of the FAQs. The FAQ for mentoring organizations says (as I quoted in my first message) http://code.google.com/mentfaq.html#what_license_may_the_prog What license may the programs be developed under? Any that the mentoring organization chooses that are still free or open source. Also, all software development must happen in the open, on a website like SourceForge, Tigris, Savannah, Apache, or Berlios. Did they really sign up as a mentor just to get the 500 bucks? It's truly amazing how 30 seconds of reading is more productive than spreading libelous FUD. I guess I read 1 more FAQ than you. But I'm not sure how quoting a Google FAQ is libelous FUD. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
Brian Capouch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Walsh and Aidan are able to see things that the rest of us cannot. Digium has duped you into associating with their evil enterprise to appropriate everyone else's hard work. I'm sure the stuff you and Mark have contributed pales in comparison with *their* contributions!! You'll never know. Contributors are required to sign a disclaimer, which is something I cannot do. -- _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/ K e v i n W a l s h _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
Kevin P. Fleming wrote: 2. Contributer shall report to Owner all changes and/or enhancements to the Program which are covered by this Agreement, and (to the extent known to Contributer) any outstanding rights, or claims of rights, of any person, that might be adverse to the rights of Contributer or Owner. In other words, the _only_ code that the disclaimer covers is that which the Contributer directly identifies to Digium to be covered by the disclaimer. In absolutely no way does this disclaimer give Digium the right to appropriate other changes the Contributer makes to the covered programs without their knowledge and permission. Well, yes, that's the idea. However, those of us who contribute don't generally provide any clear traceable definition of what we are contributing and what we are not. The documentation here is pretty woolly. Regards, Steve ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Business Edition
Aidan Van Dyk wrote: Well, you read one of the FAQs. The FAQ for mentoring organizations says (as I quoted in my first message) http://code.google.com/mentfaq.html#what_license_may_the_prog What license may the programs be developed under? Any that the mentoring organization chooses that are still free or open source. Also, all software development must happen in the open, on a website like SourceForge, Tigris, Savannah, Apache, or Berlios. And don't you think that Google is completely aware of the license issues related to Asterisk and took that into account before accepting Asterisk as a mentoring organization? If you are concerned about the license compatibility, why are you talking about here instead of with Google? I guess I read 1 more FAQ than you. But I'm not sure how quoting a Google FAQ is libelous FUD. Your original message did not quote a Google FAQ, it accused Digium of joining the SoC program only to collect the $500 mentoring fees. I believe that qualifies :-) ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
Steve Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin P. Fleming wrote: 2. Contributer shall report to Owner all changes and/or enhancements to the Program which are covered by this Agreement, and (to the extent known to Contributer) any outstanding rights, or claims of rights, of any person, that might be adverse to the rights of Contributer or Owner. In other words, the _only_ code that the disclaimer covers is that which the Contributer directly identifies to Digium to be covered by the disclaimer. In absolutely no way does this disclaimer give Digium the right to appropriate other changes the Contributer makes to the covered programs without their knowledge and permission. Well, yes, that's the idea. However, those of us who contribute don't generally provide any clear traceable definition of what we are contributing and what we are not. The documentation here is pretty woolly. As I pointed out, paragraph 2 doesn't have any bearing upon what code the owner is allowed to incorporate into the Asterisk Binary Edition; That non-cancellable right is granted in paragraph 1. The quoted paragraph (2) simply forces the person who signed the document to report any changes to the Asterisk codebase. In theory, even minor changes that would be of no use to the wider community must be reported to the owner, who would make the final decision. A fork followed by changes and/or enhancements to the code would be covered by that paragraph - forever. It's all very underhanded. -- _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/ K e v i n W a l s h _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
-Original Message- From: Lee Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 11:57 PM Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition Any consultant, business, or person that intends to reliably sustain ... As for the dual-license issue... there are businesses out there that may ... understand this, and I think that it's only natural. What I don't understand, though, is why the community's gratitude towards Digium should be anything more than what Digium's benevolence was towards them. normal. BUT, what is this? My contribution will not be accepted without a royalty-free disclaimer for Digium to use my work without compensation in their proprietary-licensed fork. This is what I do not like. or nominal amount. Or at least trade me in work. Give me something back of similar value... How many lines of code have you contributed to asterisk? How many lines of code were there when Digium GPL'd it? - or - Are you using Asterisk in a production environment? If yes, how much would a commercial solution have cost you? How much $$/time do you have in contributing code to asterisk? Who is getting the better end of the deal? By OS'ing Asterisk, Digium has given many folks the means to earn a living -- there are independent consultants, integrators, installers, calling card and VOIP businesses all built around Asterisk. YOU are getting some reward out of it, be it monetary or otherwise. If you contribute, others will benefit, just as you benefit from others' contributions. And Digium will sell the ABE and will have the cashflow to support the infrastructure -- mailing lists, cvs, and their full-time asterisk programmers... ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
Jay Milk wrote: Who is getting the better end of the deal? Well, Digium, of course. I certainly hope that they've made way more money from Asterisk than I ever expect to save or make. And I certainly expect that Digium has made way more money from Asterisk because they've open-sourced it than they ever could have hoped to make by not doing so. By OS'ing Asterisk, Digium has given many folks the means to earn a living Yes, indeed, as well as themselves. And all that I'm saying is that this is completely expected, natural, and fair. I've no argument against this. What I am saying, though, is that Digium didn't give out royalty-free proprietary licenses to Asterisk, instead, they gave out GPL licenses to Asterisk. Why, then, do they require that contributions are made any differently? Why do they require freedoms with contribution that they did not give with theirs? Well, probably because they believe that they're owed that, and probably because many others in the community not unlike yourself agree with that opinion as well. Lee. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 10:19 -0700, Lee Howard wrote: What I am saying, though, is that Digium didn't give out royalty-free proprietary licenses to Asterisk, instead, they gave out GPL licenses to Asterisk. Why, then, do they require that contributions are made any differently? Why do they require freedoms with contribution that they did not give with theirs? Well, probably because they believe that they're owed that, and probably because many others in the community not unlike yourself agree with that opinion as well. There was some discussion about a month or so ago, and a digium rep piped up to even help try to clarify this particular issue if memory serves. You do not give up your copyright on your contributed code. You do not have to give them full rights to your code if you do not wish to. You have an option to contribute GPL only code. If this is incorrect I fully expect a digium employee to speak up, but if I remember correctly that is what was said at the end of the previous thread. -- Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel UK +44 870 340 4605 Germany +49 801 777 555 3402 US +1 360 207 0479 or +1 516 687 5200 FreeWorldDialup: 635378 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
What I am saying, though, is that Digium didn't give out royalty-free proprietary licenses to Asterisk, instead, they gave out GPL licenses to Asterisk. Why, then, do they require that contributions are made any differently? Why do they require freedoms with contribution that they did not give with theirs? Well, probably because they believe that they're owed that, and probably because many others in the community not unlike yourself agree with that opinion as well. Or maybe simply because if they accepted such contributions, it would prevent them from selling purely closed source, commercial licenses, which they might be doing. That being said, somebody could very well come along and start a CVS 'patchsterisk' fork (for things like bristuffed). Why not... ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: You do not give up your copyright on your contributed code. You do not have to give them full rights to your code if you do not wish to. You have an option to contribute GPL only code. The first two statements are true; the third is not. While you can certainly distribute the code you contribute to us via any other means you wish (under any other license you wish, including the GPL), the Digium Asterisk source tree cannot accept GPL only code. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
Let me see if I can get my point across: -Original Message- From: Lee Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:19 PM Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition Jay Milk wrote: Who is getting the better end of the deal? Well, Digium, of course. 1. You have saved $5,000 by using free asterisk instead of some other vendor's proprietary solution. 2. You have contributed $1,000 worth of your own code to the project. 3. Your code is now available to everyone for free. It's also a small part of a much larger commercial product that digium sells. That still doesn't strike me as unfair. Let me put it in other terms: 1. You get paid $100,000/yr as a programmer. 2. You have worked a year on Product X, bringing it to maturity. 3. Your employer sells Product X 20,000 times for $50 each. After marketing cost, infrastructure, materials, shipping, etc, they make $500,000 of this product which they only paid you $100,000 for. In the real world of commercial software design, companies take financial risks by paying programmers to realize an idea. In the case of Asterisk, Digium took a *financial* risk by making their flagship product available to everyone for free... hoping that grateful individuals like yourself will improve upon it. Now, if they were to close the source, I'd be upset. But they don't... Just cashing out on some of the risk they took a while back. They're making more money than you saved because they took the bigger risk. By OS'ing Asterisk, Digium has given many folks the means to earn a living Yes, indeed, as well as themselves. Of course... And that's exactly the risk they took. What I am saying, though, is that Digium didn't give out royalty-free proprietary licenses to Asterisk, instead, they gave out GPL licenses to Asterisk. Why, then, do they require that contributions are made any differently? Why do they require freedoms with contribution that they did not give with theirs? Well, probably because they believe that they're owed that, and probably because many others in the community not unlike yourself agree with that opinion as well. Asterisk doesn't need Digium. Other folks could of filled the hardware voids and produced better TDM cards and IAXys, and... And with the source GPL'd, there's really no reason to ever give Digium anything. However, by planning the dual-licensing model, Digium basically assured that if anyone ever makes money on the software, it would be them. I think that's perfectly fair. Keep in mind, Digium is not saying that all code changes have to be made available to them royalty free. They're bound by the GPL, which only says that any changes you distributing have to include full source code. All they're asking for is that any code that goes into CVS and thus becames port of an Asterisk version needs to be disclaimed, so that it can be reused in a commercially licensed version. Nothing prevents you or anyone else to fork off your own CVS server and keep it GPL'd (unless I missed something somewhere). ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
Lee Howard wrote: Go ahead and have a proprietary fork, sell it, have it specially licensed. But please, please, please treat the community fairly. Otherwise it causes unrest in the community, discourages contribution, encourages forking, and triggers forum threads like this one. You seem to be neglecting the amount of work that Digium puts into the Asterisk (and related) products on an ongoing basis that is given to the community at no charge. Saying Digium GPLed Asterisk and we're thankful for that, now what only makes sense if it happened one time and then Digium stopped contributing to the source base. I think the situation is much different from that (although I'm obviously biased since I'm paid to work full-time on Asterisk by Digium). Digium continues to pay people to provide enhancements to Asterisk, Zaptel and the related projects, and those enhancements are even used by companies that directly compete with Digium. We also very strongly push our custom development customers in the direction of letting us include the code we write for them into the open-source tree, so that the community will benefit. In other words, I think the contributions from Digium to the community are ongoing, and in many ways more than offset the license that contributors grant to us for the commercial use of their code in our products. Your opinion may vary, of course :-) ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
here, here! Kevin P. Fleming wrote: Lee Howard wrote: Go ahead and have a proprietary fork, sell it, have it specially licensed. But please, please, please treat the community fairly. Otherwise it causes unrest in the community, discourages contribution, encourages forking, and triggers forum threads like this one. You seem to be neglecting the amount of work that Digium puts into the Asterisk (and related) products on an ongoing basis that is given to the community at no charge. Saying Digium GPLed Asterisk and we're thankful for that, now what only makes sense if it happened one time and then Digium stopped contributing to the source base. I think the situation is much different from that (although I'm obviously biased since I'm paid to work full-time on Asterisk by Digium). Digium continues to pay people to provide enhancements to Asterisk, Zaptel and the related projects, and those enhancements are even used by companies that directly compete with Digium. We also very strongly push our custom development customers in the direction of letting us include the code we write for them into the open-source tree, so that the community will benefit. In other words, I think the contributions from Digium to the community are ongoing, and in many ways more than offset the license that contributors grant to us for the commercial use of their code in our products. Your opinion may vary, of course :-) ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
Kevin P. Fleming wrote: You seem to be neglecting the amount of work that Digium puts into the Asterisk (and related) products on an ongoing basis that is given to the community at no charge. So at least we agree, then, on what the reasoning is. Digium feels that the community owes it to them. That's all that I was trying to say. I don't agree with the benevolent tax, but I'm not the one to do anything about it, myself. Lee. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 18:32 -0700, Lee Howard wrote: Kevin P. Fleming wrote: You seem to be neglecting the amount of work that Digium puts into the Asterisk (and related) products on an ongoing basis that is given to the community at no charge. So at least we agree, then, on what the reasoning is. Digium feels that the community owes it to them. I am not digium (nobody is, but I don't even work for them). However, Digium doesn't believe that anybody 'owes' them anything. They do *hope* that enough people will be grateful for receiving what they worked hard on (asterisk source code) and some of them will have the knowledge, some of those will also have the time, some of those will also have the inclination, and some of those will also have the generosity, to return improvements to the community. Now, from that last, small, group, they also hope that some of them will sign a disclaimer that basically says Here, this will improve the product for the community as a whole, and also help you to make a living. So, feel free to be in any of those ever smaller groups. Or, you are free to contribute GPL only code. I am one of those people who doesn't really have the knowledge (or time) to improve the asterisk code, however, I do contribute in other ways (on the mailing list, etc). One method I chose to try to give to the asterisk community was by providing a website which could 'collect' all the GPL (and other licensed) patches, addons, and products, and distribute them from a single point. Totally free of charge, with no obligation on anybody's part. Of course, like all the people setting up web forums that never got used, neither did my site. However, it is there, and I still feel that it would be a useful addition to the asterisk community to keep a lot of little patches/addons/etc in the one spot. The wiki does this for information, and I hoped that my site would do that for 'files'. BTW, that website is http://www.websitemanagers.com.au/asterisk/ See www.deadcat.net for the source of the concept/etc which I also did for another 'open source' community for the past 10 years. That's all that I was trying to say. I don't agree with the benevolent tax, but I'm not the one to do anything about it, myself. It isn't a tax, since you have a choice to not pay it. Release your work as GPL, or not at all. Regards, Adam ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
Lee Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin P. Fleming wrote: You seem to be neglecting the amount of work that Digium puts into the Asterisk (and related) products on an ongoing basis that is given to the community at no charge. So at least we agree, then, on what the reasoning is. Digium feels that the community owes it to them. I agree with that assessment. It has been flippantly said, a number of times, that if you don't like the situation then you can fork the project. A major fork seems (to me) to be pointless for one main reason (and a couple of lesser reasons): As I see it, anyone working on an Asterisk fork who had previously signed the dangerous disclaimer (the perpetual one) could find their changes to the fork rolled back into the Asterisk Binary Edition without any further permission being required. The perpetual agreement grants the owner a non-cancellable right to use changes and/or enhancements made to the Asterisk codebase as [the] owner sees fit. As any Asterisk fork would, of course, be based upon existing Asterisk code, the owner would have the automatic right to take any code they wanted and backport it into the Asterisk Binary Edition - as long as the contributor to the fork had previously signed a perpetual disclaimer at some point in the past. A fork wouldn't get very far without the support of at least some of the regular contributors, all of whom have probably signed the perpetual agreement. For this reason, I believe that if a fork were ever necessary, it would struggle to beat a distinct path away from the Asterisk Binary Edition, which would be free to assimilate any advances into its own codebase. To mitigate the above, I believe that the perpetual disclaimer should be modified to cover only a specific time period (i.e. one year from the date of submission). All contributions made within that time period would be covered by the currently-valid agreement, and that agreement could be renewed annually, if desired. I don't see that sort of change happening anytime soon because I believe that the perpetual nature of the agreement is quite deliberate. I think people sign agreements out of convenience, or pressure, without reading carefully enough. For instance, I wonder how many people actually received their $1.00 (One Dollar) and other good and valuable consideration when they signed their future options away. -- _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/ K e v i n W a l s h _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 04:15 +0100, Kevin Walsh wrote: It has been flippantly said, a number of times, that if you don't like the situation then you can fork the project. A major fork seems (to me) to be pointless for one main reason (and a couple of lesser reasons): As I see it, anyone working on an Asterisk fork who had previously signed the dangerous disclaimer (the perpetual one) could find their changes to the fork rolled back into the Asterisk Binary Edition without any further permission being required. The perpetual agreement grants the owner a non-cancellable right to use changes and/or enhancements made to the Asterisk codebase as [the] owner sees fit. As any Asterisk fork would, of course, be based IANAL, but I assume you also have the right to revoke the agreement as relating to future patches. ie, it is non-cancellable in that I can't contribute something today, and next week change my mind. I am sure I can sign the agreement, contribute enhancements, cancel my agreement, and no longer contribute enhancements. A fork wouldn't get very far without the support of at least some of the regular contributors [snip] Absolutely, since there is no point in a fork if nothing changes in the code base. For this reason, I believe that if a fork were ever necessary, it would struggle to beat a distinct path away from the Asterisk Binary Edition Correct, until the point where there is MORE features being added to the forked version of asterisk than the digium version of asterisk. This isn't likely to happen while digium themselves are making a significant contribution to asterisk source code, AND, the *average* feeling of the community is that they are happy with the status quo. Sure, nothing changes if nothing is discussed, however, it would seem that you are a member of a small minority group. So, a fork probably wouldn't work. Regards, Adam ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
[Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
Kevin Walsh wrote: One piece of good news can be found here: http://www.asterisk.org/index.php?menu=summer_of_code The requirements say nothing about being asked to sign a disclaimer, so perhaps either Google have views on this sort of practice, or people will be quietly rejected, during the interview process, based upon their willingness to have their source code closed. I suspect the latter, which would not make it good news after all. No, but the faq does mention: What license may the programs be developed under? Any that the mentoring organization chooses that are still free or open source. Also, all software development must happen in the open, on a website like SourceForge, Tigris, Savannah, Apache, or Berlios. So, if Google is sponsoring the code (that makes it work-for-hire), and they've said that it has to be free or open source, how does that relate to Digums ability to use it in non-libre products? Or has Digium worked out an agreement with Google that will give them an exclusive licence to the code as well? ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
Any consultant, business, or person that intends to reliably sustain support and maintainance contracts of software for commercial purposes must have some acceptable level of control over that software. It used to be that Digium controlled all of the commits to the CVS repository. I don't know if this is still true or not, but with the amount of activity going on in this community, it would be rather difficult to thoroughly check and filter all changes before committal without stunting progress and development. So it could be said that the level of control that Digium has over the public CVS repositories is not likely acceptable for its purposes in supporting their commercial customers. A proprietary fork that they have full control over is only natural to expect because as with most other open-source and openly-devloped projects with multiple developers, you really cannot expect to have an acceptable level of control over the software until you take a snapshot and test it and work it and patch it until you are comfortable with using it for your customers. You really would not be wise to use a publicly-modifiable code repository straight-up for commercial purposes without pulling it out and doing that work to become comfortable with it and to get some control over it. If Digium can do this and if in so doing adds monetary value to their repository, then more power to them. As for the dual-license issue... there are businesses out there that may want to integrate or otherwise use Asterisk in their proprietary and closed-source projects. This may not be compatible with the GPL or with any other open-source license that would have been acceptable to Digium at the time when Asterisk was open-sourced. So in order to be able to provide a product to these kinds of customers there must also be a code repository that uses a license that is compatible for that purpose. I understand this, and I think that it's only natural. What I don't understand, though, is why the community's gratitude towards Digium should be anything more than what Digium's benevolence was towards them. Digium open-sourced Asterisk with the GPL. Wonderful. Bravo. That's really great of them... honestly. (Aside from that decision having made Asterisk successful in the first place - for without it being open-sourced where would Asterisk be?) Now the GPL does not require me to return any developments to them, but just that I cannot keep the code and my developments from those to whom I distribute them (which in many cases may be nobody else). But to be fair, and to show my gratitude towards Digium and the community, I may therefore choose to return those developments to the community. In fact, I expect the good will to return to me in time because I am part of the community to which I am contributing my work. Anyway, I think that these sentiments are quite normal. BUT, what is this? My contribution will not be accepted without a royalty-free disclaimer for Digium to use my work without compensation in their proprietary-licensed fork. This is what I do not like. I can understand that Digium needs to have a proprietary fork. I can understand that they do not want to see their fork diverge far from what the open-sourced version may become. But to expect contributors to go above and beyond returning the same favor (publishing their work to the community) in the name of gratitude without further compensation is too much. Demanding what's more than fair and succeeding in doing so is unequal footing. If I develop something and you want a royalty-free proprietary version of it then pay me for it - even if it's just a token or nominal amount. Or at least trade me in work. Give me something back of similar value. But to expect me to develop (or better yet, hire a programmer to develop) work and then to require a private license to it without any compensation in order for me to contribute it back to the public community is simply too much. Go ahead and have a proprietary fork, sell it, have it specially licensed. But please, please, please treat the community fairly. Otherwise it causes unrest in the community, discourages contribution, encourages forking, and triggers forum threads like this one. Lee. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
