Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
Andrew Kohlsmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ABE is a VERY SPECIFIC version of HEAD (or is it STABLE?) with features CUT OUT and nothing added that isn't in HEAD already. This is what I mean with a custom set of features. I never claimed anything was added. I totally fail to see the problem here. The problem arises in two specific areas. Digium needs to hold the copyright of the entire core code base to be able to use a different license. This means that we cannot depend on f.ex sndfile or any other gpl project to do a specific job. Code reuse becomes a thing you cannot take advantage of. Digium cannot ship a proprietary product that includes gpl code and this means that we have to do a lot more work instead of using proven stable free code in the core of asterisk. The other problem is the issue that free software developers are mostly (in my experience) not happy with the fact that their code would be used in proprietary software. It conflicts with the whole religion of free software. This means that fewer contributions would be expected and the development process goes slower. I can only speak for myself, but please understand the clear conflict with the whole philosophy of free software. This is exactly what they are doing. They are supporting a very specific branch with an eye for stability and repeatability. Yes, and as I tried to say; offer support on a said set of features. It can also be a shape asterisk must be in, but it doesn't have to be non free. [..] Oh, it's CVS HEAD from 20050612 and anyway... what? oh, [..] libc? [..] Six what? [..]. Digium's avoiding all this bullshit. It's a specific version of Asterisk compiled by them. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. They can still do this with free software. You can choose to offer support on what you want, pre compiled versions or not, but this whole idea of dual licensing is hurting us, in my opinion. -- Esben Stien is [EMAIL PROTECTED] s a http://www. s tn m irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact [sip|iax]: e e jid:b0ef@n n ___ 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 13:47 -0700, Daryll Strauss wrote: On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 13:10 -0700, trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: Look at 'big evil corporations' like apple. They did in a year with mach what the FSF/GNU wants to do with HURD and still cant (to quote stallman 'its really hard' while explaining why after 10 years HURD still doesnt exist). Apple was able to do this largely because they paid people to do it. That money had to come from somewhere. While apple did release darwin (the mach microkernel+ BSD components - but no mac components so largely not highly useful) under a license even the FSF claims is 'free'. Had it not been for the 'big evil corporations' that would not have existed at all. You're fairly off base with that paragraph. you're fairly stupid. I wasnt giving a history lesson I was talking about the fact that both apple and FSF tried to do the same thing. Apple did it in about a year (from the time mach actually became available to use the way it is) and FSF is stil trying and stallman is still whining that its really hard and that is why he cant get hurd done. You should not try to correct someone when you dont understand what is being said. Not to mention your 'facts' are off regarding the times below. But since that is the best thing you could find to pick apart on what I said, hey more power to you. I however suggest that this go back to what the thread was about, not your bias towards anyone who says something you dont understand. Apple released MacOS X based on NeXT's software in 2001 In 2000 apple had darwin running on both ppc and x86 so I think your timeline is off a bit. I think you are off by two years. So, it's no where near Apple talking a year to do what GNU was trying to do. You could argue it took Apple over 20 years to develop MacOS X. They also took a significant amount of open source developed code (Mach, BSD, etc) to do so. mach wasnt available for use this way until about 98 iirc. Boht GNU and apple had the same amount of time. One did it the other is still crying its too hard. And *that* was the point, one that obviously escaped you. I'm a big fan of paying people to get development done in a timely manner, but this really doesn't make your claim. it doesnt? one that paid developers did it the other is crying its too hard. And its basically the same thing. I think that it does make the claim. Thanks for 'correcting' me with incorrect facts though, that and your taking credit for undoing xfree86 gave me quite a chuckle. -- 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 18:02 -0400, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: On Saturday 11 June 2005 16:10, trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: I have seen more people on this list freak out if people but non digium hardware to run their asterisk box (usually at a substantial price discount). People on this list have actually freaked out that someone would dare buy a cheaper card (like the x100ps for example, which afaik digium doeesnt sell anymore, granted this was an older thread) and not support digium (there was a similar rant over using voice modems instead of an x100p way back when). Let's get it straight WHY this was the case (at least for me) - Guy buys $5 winmodem and tries using it - Guy has INSANE-O amounts of problems with echo and general weirdness - Guy refuses to listen to the list to TRY KNOWN HARDWARE before optimizing - Guy insists that it's Asterisk that sucks At least for me, THIS is why I freaked out on people for buying the clone cards. Once you know what you're doing and what can cause problems and you I was not refering to you specifically then, sorry that you got offended by me talking about specific events that you werent part of. I was clear in saying that people freaked out and said that others should not but 3rd party hardware becuase they should support digium. There were no claims of asterisk sucking or anything just a big flame war that I was speaking of. Those that wanted to use 3rd party hardware and those that felt that digium should be supported. I did not speak of anything else. I apologize that I did not speak of your situqation specifically. Next time I will be sure to include you personally in my posts to this list. Personally I dont see a problem with any of this. If digium makes it too difficult to do stuff asterisk *can* be forked unless that is forbidden (because its GPL I didnt bother to look at forking issues Nope you can fork it, and in fact there have been several forks but AFAIK they've all died out due to lack of mindshare. I thought most of them died because the people that fork it dont know that much in terms of overall project management, design, etc. They are just caught up in the moment that either their way is better because they are always right, or they were trying to get away from some 'big evil corporation' and they didnt realize how much work it is to make a release. Some forks have worked well. And continue to work well. It depends on who forks and why. -- 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 18:04 -0400, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: On Saturday 11 June 2005 16:21, trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: The GPL does not extend to the hardware or software that Asterisk talks to. For example, if you are using a SIP soft phone as a client for Asterisk, it is not a requirement that that program also be distributed under GPL. Additionally, AGI applications, which are simply launched by Asterisk and communicate No, but there was some talk about exactly what linking refers to. If you develop a 3rd party .so that asterisk loads, it does fall under the GPL; you can't make a wowie-gee CDR or call routing module and license it any way you please. Mark was at one point condidering the pros and cons of doing the same for the manager interface, but I haven't heard anything concrete since. Really. So if I use a non GPL libc I cant run asterisk? Interesting that its so parasitic that you will either be assimilated or not. I however dont think that is the case. Modules, yes they are considered derritave works (my opinion is that they arent but that is the wording on gnu.org), libraries can go either way. There are ways to curtail this behaviour if desired and make it so you can only link against GPL code, but then things like the manager interface cant be controlled that way. If that were the case they could say you cna only use GPL sip clients and they cant (and specifically dont) say that. -- 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
No, but there was some talk about exactly what linking refers to. If you develop a 3rd party .so that asterisk loads, it does fall under the GPL; you can't make a wowie-gee CDR or call routing module and license it any way you please. That really depends. Generally the gpl works the other way around (when it's your code loading gpl libraries). Say I write a cdr module that doesn't use any asterisk code or header files with it's own interface and release it under the bsd license. Then in asterisk I load it and call it's functions. It's not under the gpl. And even if I release a module in a way that a copy does fall under the gpl, that doesn't stop me from releasing other copies under any damn license I want to. I could for example license it to a commercial vendor to use in their own voip software under a commercial license or the bsd license. What I can't do is take away your right to use the gpl copy I put out there. That is the ONLY thing I can't do. Chris ___ 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Sunday 12 Jun 2005 08:56, trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 13:47 -0700, Daryll Strauss wrote: On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 13:10 -0700, trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: Look at 'big evil corporations' like apple. They did in a year with mach what the FSF/GNU wants to do with HURD and still cant (to quote stallman 'its really hard' while explaining why after 10 years HURD still doesnt exist). Apple was able to do this largely because they paid people to do it. That money had to come from somewhere. While apple did release darwin (the mach microkernel+ BSD components - but no mac components so largely not highly useful) under a license even the FSF claims is 'free'. Had it not been for the 'big evil corporations' that would not have existed at all. You're fairly off base with that paragraph. you're fairly stupid. I wasnt giving a history lesson I was talking about the fact that both apple and FSF tried to do the same thing. Apple did it in about a year (from the time mach actually became available to use the way it is) and FSF is stil trying and stallman is still whining that its really hard and that is why he cant get hurd done. You are the one who is fairly stupid. Apple took Mach, BSD and X and got them to talk to each other. The FSF, have taken Mach and are attempting to write another BSD. 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On 6/12/05, Bob Goddard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're fairly off base with that paragraph. you're fairly stupid. You are the one who is fairly stupid. This thread is getting so OT and overall generally stupid its time it died a gracious death, please... Granted there are difference of opinions, but the options have been played out so many ways already. Mark ___ 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Sun, 2005-06-12 at 15:06 +0100, Bob Goddard wrote: On Sunday 12 Jun 2005 08:56, trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 13:47 -0700, Daryll Strauss wrote: On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 13:10 -0700, trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: Look at 'big evil corporations' like apple. They did in a year with mach what the FSF/GNU wants to do with HURD and still cant (to quote stallman 'its really hard' while explaining why after 10 years HURD still doesnt exist). Apple was able to do this largely because they paid people to do it. That money had to come from somewhere. While apple did release darwin (the mach microkernel+ BSD components - but no mac components so largely not highly useful) under a license even the FSF claims is 'free'. Had it not been for the 'big evil corporations' that would not have existed at all. You're fairly off base with that paragraph. you're fairly stupid. I wasnt giving a history lesson I was talking about the fact that both apple and FSF tried to do the same thing. Apple did it in about a year (from the time mach actually became available to use the way it is) and FSF is stil trying and stallman is still whining that its really hard and that is why he cant get hurd done. You are the one who is fairly stupid. Apple took Mach, BSD and X and got them to talk to each other. The FSF, have taken Mach and are attempting to write another BSD. Thank you for repeating me and leaving out the fact that FSF *cant* geti t to work, to quote stallman on the problem its relaly hard and that is why they cant get it working. My whole point was that apple *did* it. You have so eloquently proven my point about your intelligence. -- 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Sunday 12 Jun 2005 16:10, trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: On Sun, 2005-06-12 at 15:06 +0100, Bob Goddard wrote: On Sunday 12 Jun 2005 08:56, trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 13:47 -0700, Daryll Strauss wrote: On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 13:10 -0700, trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: Look at 'big evil corporations' like apple. They did in a year with mach what the FSF/GNU wants to do with HURD and still cant (to quote stallman 'its really hard' while explaining why after 10 years HURD still doesnt exist). Apple was able to do this largely because they paid people to do it. That money had to come from somewhere. While apple did release darwin (the mach microkernel+ BSD components - but no mac components so largely not highly useful) under a license even the FSF claims is 'free'. Had it not been for the 'big evil corporations' that would not have existed at all. You're fairly off base with that paragraph. you're fairly stupid. I wasnt giving a history lesson I was talking about the fact that both apple and FSF tried to do the same thing. Apple did it in about a year (from the time mach actually became available to use the way it is) and FSF is stil trying and stallman is still whining that its really hard and that is why he cant get hurd done. You are the one who is fairly stupid. Apple took Mach, BSD and X and got them to talk to each other. The FSF, have taken Mach and are attempting to write another BSD. Thank you for repeating me and leaving out the fact that FSF *cant* geti t to work, to quote stallman on the problem its relaly hard and that is why they cant get it working. My whole point was that apple *did* it. You have so eloquently proven my point about your intelligence. For the last time, Apple took a ready written O/S in FreeBSD, the FSF are doing effectively a full rewrite of FreeBSD. A year my arse. Few people are working on Hurd where as with *BSD and Linux they are a cast of thousands. ___ 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
Take this off list please.. Regards, Sahil Gupta VoiceValley On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, Bob Goddard wrote: On Sunday 12 Jun 2005 16:10, trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: On Sun, 2005-06-12 at 15:06 +0100, Bob Goddard wrote: On Sunday 12 Jun 2005 08:56, trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 13:47 -0700, Daryll Strauss wrote: On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 13:10 -0700, trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: Look at 'big evil corporations' like apple. They did in a year with mach what the FSF/GNU wants to do with HURD and still cant (to quote stallman 'its really hard' while explaining why after 10 years HURD still doesnt exist). Apple was able to do this largely because they paid people to do it. That money had to come from somewhere. While apple did release darwin (the mach microkernel+ BSD components - but no mac components so largely not highly useful) under a license even the FSF claims is 'free'. Had it not been for the 'big evil corporations' that would not have existed at all. You're fairly off base with that paragraph. you're fairly stupid. I wasnt giving a history lesson I was talking about the fact that both apple and FSF tried to do the same thing. Apple did it in about a year (from the time mach actually became available to use the way it is) and FSF is stil trying and stallman is still whining that its really hard and that is why he cant get hurd done. You are the one who is fairly stupid. Apple took Mach, BSD and X and got them to talk to each other. The FSF, have taken Mach and are attempting to write another BSD. Thank you for repeating me and leaving out the fact that FSF *cant* geti t to work, to quote stallman on the problem its relaly hard and that is why they cant get it working. My whole point was that apple *did* it. You have so eloquently proven my point about your intelligence. For the last time, Apple took a ready written O/S in FreeBSD, the FSF are doing effectively a full rewrite of FreeBSD. A year my arse. Few people are working on Hurd where as with *BSD and Linux they are a cast of thousands. ___ 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Sun, 2005-06-12 at 17:01 +0100, Bob Goddard wrote: For the last time, Apple took a ready written O/S in FreeBSD, the FSF are doing effectively a full rewrite of FreeBSD. A year my arse. Few people are working on Hurd where as with *BSD and Linux they are a cast of thousands. Glad that its the last time, that means that you finally realized how stupid you really are. While the BSD components are based on freebsd 5 (in 10.4) guess what, fbsd is a monolithic kernel, not a microkernel, as such they have to write 'servers' (mach speak for the different threads that handle the different aspects of the operating system). HURD hasnt happened because according to stallman writing those servers is really hard. Had you known this little detail you would know that you cant just take a BSD monolithic kernel and stick it into mach and have any sort of performance (infact early mach versions did this but the context switching caused far too much overhead). It was broken up into different processes rather than one large process that would greatly slow performance. I am sorry that I offended your religion by quoting stallman. Perhaps you should do a little more reading before you take offense to what stallman said. I do have to commend you by stating clearly this is the last time you will tell me I am right and that you really are an idiot. Perhaps now we can get on to other things. -- 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
Daryll Strauss wrote: I'm not comfortable with Digiums policy of having to sign over my code to them. Although I've seen no signs of malice on their part, it just doesn't sit right with me. I write code for a living, and if companies are involved I expect to be paid for it. I can chose to release code under BSD (and therefore get no say in how it is used) or I can release it under the GPL (and make sure everyone shares it). Digium is essentially asking me to write code and donate it to them without getting paid, and if they like it they'll keep a copy and release a copy under the GPL. Individuals donating to companies doesn't make a lot of sense to me, so I won't do that. That means I can choose to not distribute my code, or make it available under the GPL and make other people treat it as a patch to Digium's tree. One of benefits of open source is that the contributors have a say in this matter. If contributors really don't like it, there's no reason they couldn't start a libre asterisk project on SourceForge. The downside of that the members of the libre project would have to merge the Digium code at regular intervals. It takes some effort. It also requires getting enough of a community to make it worthwhile. If enough people contribute to the libre project instead of directly to Digium, then Digium may find it's not worth the effort of continuing their contribution policy, just like what happened with XFree86. It is available as an option, for those people who think it is enough of an issue and want to do the work involved. As I have been reading this thread one missing angle that perhaps should be addressed by those who are bothered by the current licensing scheme is this: what alternative means exist out there for Digium to try to ensure their corporate existence? We can all see that in the backroom down in Huntsville there is a pretty fair-sized phalanx of people whose time is spent on Asterisk, not Digium's other business. Those people need to eat, and Digium needs to make a profit in order to insure that Asterisk isn't simply just maintained, but can grow and respond to what we all have to concede is a very rapidly-changing technological environment. I haven't been around since Day One, but was around at the point that the market hadn't yet decided between Asterisk, VOCAL, Voxilla, etc., and the Asterisk project was way, way smaller than it is right now. Back then, Digium was a much smaller company. Mark and Greg (and I'm sure others who I didn't have as much contact with) used to pretty publicly explain their rationale for the exact model Mark had chosen, and one worry that was expressed more than once was, Beyond our simple continuation in existence as a business, what would happen to Asterisk if we *don't* make it, and this model doesn't generate enough revenue for us to continue to fund its development? One thing I see lacking in this thread is a discussion of alternatives that would meet the relatively small list of desiderata: keep Asterisk open and free, make enough money to pay for the ongoing cost of Asterisk development, and provide enough return that it would make sense for Digium to exist as a commercial enterprise. How else could it be done? 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
Brian Capouch wrote: As I have been reading this thread one missing angle that perhaps should be addressed by those who are bothered by the current licensing scheme is this: what alternative means exist out there for Digium to try to ensure their corporate existence? We can all see that in the backroom down in Huntsville there is a pretty fair-sized phalanx of people whose time is spent on Asterisk, not Digium's other business. Those people need to eat, and Digium needs to make a profit in order to insure that Asterisk isn't simply just maintained, but can grow and respond to what we all have to concede is a very rapidly-changing technological environment. [snip] One thing I see lacking in this thread is a discussion of alternatives that would meet the relatively small list of desiderata: keep Asterisk open and free, make enough money to pay for the ongoing cost of Asterisk development, and provide enough return that it would make sense for Digium to exist as a commercial enterprise. How else could it be done? John Koenig offered 7 open source business strategies: http://management.itmanagersjournal.com/management/04/05/10/2052216.shtml?tid=85 Optimization, dual-licensing, consulting, subscriptions, patronage, embedded, and hosted open source David Pool offered 3 more strategies: publishing, hardware, and training So in addition to dual-licensing, Digium also sells hardware (that point seems to have been forgotten) and offers consulting (implementation/integration/support). Regards, -- Jason Becker Director CEO Coalescent Systems Inc. Enabling Open Source Telephony 403.244.8089 www.coalescentsystems.ca ___ 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
Brian Capouch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: what alternative means exist out there for Digium to try to ensure their corporate existence? They already stated that the proprietary version, if I'm not mistaken, is nothing but the free version, but with a custom set of features that fits their support plan. Why not just offer support on these features?. It's not harder than to state which features are supported and it what shape asterisk must be in to be qualified for support. I don't see the reasoning, really. There would probably be more people who would request direct support from them. I have no problem with paying for services or paying to get a certain feature. I would gladly donate to the project too. All in all, there is a solution to support the project as a whole as long as you got qualified support personell. Set up a voip so I can call them over IAX/SIP for immediate support charged to my credit card. I don't see this anywhere on the digium site. Don't they want my money?. They could service support for asterisk for the whole world and all you would need is a softphone to dial direct p2p. Set up a donation mechanism too. They could still sell this software; no problem. Digium also sells hardware. -- Esben Stien is [EMAIL PROTECTED] s a http://www. s tn m irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact [sip|iax]: e e jid:b0ef@n n ___ 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Sun, 2005-06-12 at 22:27 +0200, Esben Stien wrote: Brian Capouch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: what alternative means exist out there for Digium to try to ensure their corporate existence? They already stated that the proprietary version, if I'm not mistaken, is nothing but the free version, but with a custom set of features that fits their support plan. Why not just offer support on these features?. It's not harder than to state which features are supported and it what shape asterisk must be in to be qualified for support. Because the gpl is parasitic. If I got a commercial license from digium I could add proprietary code to it to work with say some trade secret protected technology that I have (lets pretend I make pbxs or something). Under the GPL *MY* code *MUST* be GPLed as well, and open for all to see. For many corporations giving out their trade secrets (which immediatly invalidates the trade secret status since you have to actively protect them) or other IP would be unacceptable. This allows asterisk to be used, at least in part, by companies that have other products, not just asterisk boxes. If all you want to do is resell asterisk service the GPL suits that, if you want to give your customers a CD (or other media/access) of the code. If however you did not want to do that then a commercial license is the way to go. I do not see this as a big point for the commercial license, I instead see it as development by companies that have some existing code base or protocol or interface or other process they dont want public. All in all, there is a solution to support the project as a whole as long as you got qualified support personell. You as an individual can sell support on asterisk, and their commercial licenses and GPL issuance of the code doesnt prevent digium from doing the same. There are reasons other than support to get a non GPLed version of asterisk. Personally I find myself supporting asterisk on irc more than anything else. And that makes it easier to juggle multiple things where a live voice connection would not make it so easy :) -- 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Sunday 12 June 2005 04:14, trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: Really. So if I use a non GPL libc I cant run asterisk? Interesting that its so parasitic that you will either be assimilated or not. I however dont think that is the case. Modules, yes they are considered derritave works (my opinion is that they arent but that is the wording on gnu.org), libraries can go either way. There are ways to curtail this behaviour if desired and make it so you can only link against GPL code, but then things like the manager interface cant be controlled that way. If that were the case they could say you cna only use GPL sip clients and they cant (and specifically dont) say that. It was just mumbings and I do believe that they were resolved in a common sense fashion. i.e. .so's are linked, whereas AGIs and Manager interfaces are not. I have not, however, seen anything *definitive* on it. -A. ___ 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Sunday 12 June 2005 16:27, Esben Stien wrote: They already stated that the proprietary version, if I'm not mistaken, is nothing but the free version, but with a custom set of features that fits their support plan. Not really. ABE is a VERY SPECIFIC version of HEAD (or is it STABLE?) with features CUT OUT and nothing added that isn't in HEAD already. This is key: NO NEW FEATURES. There isn't any wowie-gee feature in ABE that you won't have in HEAD. You just can't have the EXACT SAME source tree, and even those who purchase ABE don't have access to that. Again, I totally fail to see the problem here. Why not just offer support on these features?. It's not harder than to state which features are supported and it what shape asterisk must be in to be qualified for support. This is exactly what they are doing. They are supporting a very specific branch with an eye for stability and repeatability. All in all, there is a solution to support the project as a whole as long as you got qualified support personell. Yes hello this is Jim from NewVoipCo, I've got Asterisk installed and... pardon? Oh, it's CVS HEAD from 20050612 and anyway... what? oh, I pulled it at about 9am. What timezone? oh, PST. And anyway as I was saying... the compiler? GCC 3.3.2... libc? 6. Six what? oh sorry it's 2.3.4. On Mandrake. Yes... Digium's avoiding all this bullshit. It's a specific version of Asterisk compiled by them. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. -A. ___ 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
Again, I totally fail to see the problem here. See the ubuntu distro site for more on why this can be seen as a problem and conflict of interest. http://www.ubuntu.com/ I cannot find the exact quote now, but the idea that Mark Shuttleworth mentions is that if ubuntu shipped a slick corporate version (aka Red Hat and others) it would cause a severe conflict of interest for the ubuntu team; so they are not going to do that. I really like the idea of astrisk having an ABE or something like it. -- that this is a known stable supportable level of code. I really dislike That digium wants to treat this knowledge as secret instead of letting both the customers and the community know where these checkpoints are in time and location is very sad. And this is something that I have worried about when first using asterisk .. that is .. what level should I be using. but pulling stuff off of head and testing seems to have worked fine (so far :) ) ___ 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: Further his point seems to be anti BSD license. If I write software and give it away free what difference does it make to me if someone sells it. They still have to find someone who is willing to pay for it when they could get it from me for free. Because I chose to give it up for free I would not have any expectation of profiting off it. As long as credit is given I dont see any reason people would freak out that someone is selling something you give away for free. Unless of course its envy, that you did the work but couldnt find a way to sell it and someone else did. Actuall, the point is with Asterisk, he *ISN'T ALLOWED* to sell a closed product based on his work with it. Only Digium (and those buying commercial licences from them) can do that. He got the source under the GPL, so must respect it. Digium, on the other hand get's to make closed products from it - that's the licence/disclaimer that developpers (have the choice to) agree to when submitting code for inclusion. Most people haven't had a problem with that, because, in the past, Digium has been a benevolent keeper-of-the-code, not a direct competitor to the contributors. But that Digium is directly competing with what others are trying to provide, and is openly hostile to contributors who are using it in non-intended ways (you can read that as without buying Digium hardware to use run it), contributors are starting to become leary of Digium's intentions. I find people are often against anyone making any sort of profit on anything, read the archives where people freaked that people were selling preconfigured asterisk boxes. How dare they provide hardware, configuration support, and who knows maybe even telephone tech support, and they were *gasp* charging for all of that. Well, obviously, Digium was completely against anyone making a profit from using Asterisk that they couldn't easily have a large upper hand in. As long as the upper hand was mainly just theoretical, nobody really minded. But now, as this clenched upper hand is smashing down on contributers, they are getting alarmed. I see this whole argument (which acutally comes up a lot when you are discussing different licenses) as futile. There are those that are all fore freedom, the freedom to choose the freedom to do what you want with the software, and others who want to hold people to a restrictive license and remove choices. I personally choose to exercise my freedom and give others more freedom in what they do with my software. I'm not really talking about the licence argument at all. I'm purely talking about Digium behaviour, and the brick wall separating both sides of their mouth. If someone who started development on a project wants to exercise their freedom and choose a license different than what I would have chosen I respect that choice. However I personally wont release anything under the GPL because I feel that its too restrictive on what others can do with what I write, why I prefer the BSD style license, it gives people more choice, more freedom. Don't you wish Asterisk was under a more BSD-style licence? But that's neither here nor there - They chose to give you asterisk under a GPL, and require that if you want to contribute to Asterisk, they have full right to use it to try and run you out of any Asterisk-related business. Again - that's their right, and many people accept that. ___ 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 15:09 -0400, Aidan Van Dyk wrote: Most people haven't had a problem with that, because, in the past, Digium has been a benevolent keeper-of-the-code, not a direct competitor to the contributors. But that Digium is directly competing with what others are trying to provide, and is openly hostile to contributors who are using it in non-intended ways (you can read that as without buying Digium hardware to use run it), contributors are starting to become leary of Digium's intentions. I have seen more people on this list freak out if people but non digium hardware to run their asterisk box (usually at a substantial price discount). People on this list have actually freaked out that someone would dare buy a cheaper card (like the x100ps for example, which afaik digium doeesnt sell anymore, granted this was an older thread) and not support digium (there was a similar rant over using voice modems instead of an x100p way back when). I find people are often against anyone making any sort of profit on anything, read the archives where people freaked that people were selling preconfigured asterisk boxes. How dare they provide hardware, configuration support, and who knows maybe even telephone tech support, and they were *gasp* charging for all of that. Well, obviously, Digium was completely against anyone making a profit from using Asterisk that they couldn't easily have a large upper hand in. As long as the upper hand was mainly just theoretical, nobody really minded. But now, as this clenched upper hand is smashing down on contributers, they are getting alarmed. Its gpl code unless you buy otherwise. Which means that you have to respect that license. The profit isnt from the software (which if you get for free doesnt cost you anything) its for the configuration of the system, any consulting that may be done to see what is needed in a given environment, hardware (often with markup), etc. The same holds true for a consultant setting up and installing a web server based off apache, or even redhat selling CDs, or even if you want to go to stallmans own words, selling tapes of emacs for $150 when he quit his job and found he needed money to pay the rent, and subsequent forming of FSF to solicit donations when people stopped paying $150 for a tape of emacs, and now the proposed GPL 3.0 to charge corporate users of GPL code who dont acutally distro a product (like google and ebay for example). Personally I dont see a problem with any of this. If digium makes it too difficult to do stuff asterisk *can* be forked unless that is forbidden (because its GPL I didnt bother to look at forking issues because I dont develop for GPL products, why when I stated in a different thread I would write a product people were asking for I said bsd or creative commons or something else they come up with, my choice is that I dont believe in the GPL so I personally wont develop for it, but I dont tell others they should or should not use that license). I'm not really talking about the licence argument at all. I'm purely talking about Digium behaviour, and the brick wall separating both sides of their mouth. From what I read in this post its not that different than stallman maybe they are just taking cues from him? Since I missed it why dont you recap the highlights of what specifically they have done in as brief way possible if I am incorrect in what I am reading into this. What you have said applies to any gpl code, you cant profit off the code itself, but can profit on tertiary things like media charges, consulting work, service contracts, preinstalled systems (the labour to install and configure it of course). There are very few licenses that allow you to 'do whatever' with the software part of it, BSD is one (although you have to give credit as per the standard license). Many licenses have even conflicted with being distributed with other products so those packages have to be added on after. I believe this was a problem with apache initially, although since they roll their own license it was easy for them to correct that. There have been a bunch of products that are free to get, 100% open source but have a restriction on bundling with other products, which of course makes it unusable in any standard distribution. Normally these issues get resolved fairly quickly (what developer wants to make it a pain to install their product?) Don't you wish Asterisk was under a more BSD-style licence? But that's neither here nor there - They chose to give you asterisk under a GPL, and require that if you want to contribute to Asterisk, they have full right to use it to try and run you out of any Asterisk-related business. Again - that's their right, and many people accept that. Because of my personal prejudices to the GPL I wish that ever GPL product was under the BSD license, I would develop for a lot of other projects that way. But that is my choice, not one I
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
Curious as to why there is any problem in general, I went to google and started hunting the license information. I found a couple of resources they all say basically the same thing, all are on digiums site. I cant understand why there is any sort of problem. There are 2 licenses they sell, one is GPL and free. This is what most people use. For people who want to be able to sell asterisk or incorporate it into their existing product line they can buy a commercial license that removes the parasitic nature of the GPL (ie any code you create will be assimilated into the GPL as well). The GPL does not prohibit forking, so long as the forked code is GPLed. Course then you have to name it something else, maybe instead of * you use the other telephone special key # and name it hash to go with whatever people that are complaining about this are smoking. http://www.digium.com/downloads/licensing.pdf (basically the same but not as formal as the next link). http://www.digium.com/handbook-draft.pdf 1.3 Licensing Asterisk is generally distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, or GPL. This license permits you to freely distribute Asterisk in source and binary forms, with or without modifications, provided that when it is distributed to anyone at all, it is distributed with source code (including any changes you make) and without any further restrictions on their ability to use or distribute the code. For more information, refer to the GNU General Public License, included as an appendix. The GPL does not extend to the hardware or software that Asterisk talks to. For example, if you are using a SIP soft phone as a client for Asterisk, it is not a requirement that that program also be distributed under GPL. Additionally, AGI applications, which are simply launched by Asterisk and communicate For those applications in which the GNU GPL is not appropriate (because of some sort of proprietary linkage, for example), Digium is the solely capable of licensing Asterisk outside of the terms of the GPL at their discression. For more information on licensing Asterisk outside of GPL, contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
Digium is taking a some more equal than others sort of approach to Asterisk. They figure that since they developed the base code, they deserve a privileged position in the food chain, where they can do things with the code that others can't. That is absolutely their right, but I've never liked that approach. I think it's harmful to the growth of the project. I was one of the subversives that undid the XFree86 development model. For those who don't know, XFree86 had a model where you had to be a member to read the code and you had to be a core member to write the code. Anyone else had to wait for releases to get code. We set up the DRI project which was readable by anyone and merged the code between the the core XFree86 tree and our tree regularly. It wasn't really a fork, since we merged code in both directions. It was just a more open development tree. We created public mailing lists and moved discussions out in the open. We required people submit a few patches to demonstrate their competence, then we'd give them write access. Eventually XFree86 caved to the pressure and made their mailing lists and source tree available to anyone. They still restricted write access, but since patches were much more closely synch'd to the development tree getting patches in was quicker and easier, and some people just routed them through the DRI tree since our development was more open. The end result was a lot more involvement and faster development of XFree86. I'm not comfortable with Digiums policy of having to sign over my code to them. Although I've seen no signs of malice on their part, it just doesn't sit right with me. I write code for a living, and if companies are involved I expect to be paid for it. I can chose to release code under BSD (and therefore get no say in how it is used) or I can release it under the GPL (and make sure everyone shares it). Digium is essentially asking me to write code and donate it to them without getting paid, and if they like it they'll keep a copy and release a copy under the GPL. Individuals donating to companies doesn't make a lot of sense to me, so I won't do that. That means I can choose to not distribute my code, or make it available under the GPL and make other people treat it as a patch to Digium's tree. One of benefits of open source is that the contributors have a say in this matter. If contributors really don't like it, there's no reason they couldn't start a libre asterisk project on SourceForge. The downside of that the members of the libre project would have to merge the Digium code at regular intervals. It takes some effort. It also requires getting enough of a community to make it worthwhile. If enough people contribute to the libre project instead of directly to Digium, then Digium may find it's not worth the effort of continuing their contribution policy, just like what happened with XFree86. It is available as an option, for those people who think it is enough of an issue and want to do the work involved. - |Daryll ___ 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 13:10 -0700, trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: Look at 'big evil corporations' like apple. They did in a year with mach what the FSF/GNU wants to do with HURD and still cant (to quote stallman 'its really hard' while explaining why after 10 years HURD still doesnt exist). Apple was able to do this largely because they paid people to do it. That money had to come from somewhere. While apple did release darwin (the mach microkernel+ BSD components - but no mac components so largely not highly useful) under a license even the FSF claims is 'free'. Had it not been for the 'big evil corporations' that would not have existed at all. You're fairly off base with that paragraph. Mach was developed at Carnegie Mellon. I'm not sure when it was started, but it was up and running (with a full OS on top of it) when I was an undergrad there in 1984. NeXT took the CMU Mach and built an operating system on top of it. That was up and running by 1988. Apple bought NeXT in late 1996. Apple released MacOS X based on NeXT's software in 2001 So, it's no where near Apple talking a year to do what GNU was trying to do. You could argue it took Apple over 20 years to develop MacOS X. They also took a significant amount of open source developed code (Mach, BSD, etc) to do so. I'm a big fan of paying people to get development done in a timely manner, but this really doesn't make your claim. - |Daryll ___ 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
just a small sidenote: digium does not sell ss7 licenses, thats someone else doing that. trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 15:09 -0400, Aidan Van Dyk wrote: Most people haven't had a problem with that, because, in the past, Digium has been a benevolent keeper-of-the-code, not a direct competitor to the contributors. But that Digium is directly competing with what others are trying to provide, and is openly hostile to contributors who are using it in non-intended ways (you can read that as without buying Digium hardware to use run it), contributors are starting to become leary of Digium's intentions. I have seen more people on this list freak out if people but non digium hardware to run their asterisk box (usually at a substantial price discount). People on this list have actually freaked out that someone would dare buy a cheaper card (like the x100ps for example, which afaik digium doeesnt sell anymore, granted this was an older thread) and not support digium (there was a similar rant over using voice modems instead of an x100p way back when). I find people are often against anyone making any sort of profit on anything, read the archives where people freaked that people were selling preconfigured asterisk boxes. How dare they provide hardware, configuration support, and who knows maybe even telephone tech support, and they were *gasp* charging for all of that. Well, obviously, Digium was completely against anyone making a profit from using Asterisk that they couldn't easily have a large upper hand in. As long as the upper hand was mainly just theoretical, nobody really minded. But now, as this clenched upper hand is smashing down on contributers, they are getting alarmed. Its gpl code unless you buy otherwise. Which means that you have to respect that license. The profit isnt from the software (which if you get for free doesnt cost you anything) its for the configuration of the system, any consulting that may be done to see what is needed in a given environment, hardware (often with markup), etc. The same holds true for a consultant setting up and installing a web server based off apache, or even redhat selling CDs, or even if you want to go to stallmans own words, selling tapes of emacs for $150 when he quit his job and found he needed money to pay the rent, and subsequent forming of FSF to solicit donations when people stopped paying $150 for a tape of emacs, and now the proposed GPL 3.0 to charge corporate users of GPL code who dont acutally distro a product (like google and ebay for example). Personally I dont see a problem with any of this. If digium makes it too difficult to do stuff asterisk *can* be forked unless that is forbidden (because its GPL I didnt bother to look at forking issues because I dont develop for GPL products, why when I stated in a different thread I would write a product people were asking for I said bsd or creative commons or something else they come up with, my choice is that I dont believe in the GPL so I personally wont develop for it, but I dont tell others they should or should not use that license). I'm not really talking about the licence argument at all. I'm purely talking about Digium behaviour, and the brick wall separating both sides of their mouth. From what I read in this post its not that different than stallman maybe they are just taking cues from him? Since I missed it why dont you recap the highlights of what specifically they have done in as brief way possible if I am incorrect in what I am reading into this. What you have said applies to any gpl code, you cant profit off the code itself, but can profit on tertiary things like media charges, consulting work, service contracts, preinstalled systems (the labour to install and configure it of course). There are very few licenses that allow you to 'do whatever' with the software part of it, BSD is one (although you have to give credit as per the standard license). Many licenses have even conflicted with being distributed with other products so those packages have to be added on after. I believe this was a problem with apache initially, although since they roll their own license it was easy for them to correct that. There have been a bunch of products that are free to get, 100% open source but have a restriction on bundling with other products, which of course makes it unusable in any standard distribution. Normally these issues get resolved fairly quickly (what developer wants to make it a pain to install their product?) Don't you wish Asterisk was under a more BSD-style licence? But that's neither here nor there - They chose to give you asterisk under a GPL, and require that if you want to contribute to Asterisk, they have full right to use it to try and run you out of any Asterisk-related business. Again - that's their right, and many people accept that. Because of my personal prejudices to the GPL I wish that ever GPL
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Saturday 11 June 2005 16:10, trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: I have seen more people on this list freak out if people but non digium hardware to run their asterisk box (usually at a substantial price discount). People on this list have actually freaked out that someone would dare buy a cheaper card (like the x100ps for example, which afaik digium doeesnt sell anymore, granted this was an older thread) and not support digium (there was a similar rant over using voice modems instead of an x100p way back when). Let's get it straight WHY this was the case (at least for me) - Guy buys $5 winmodem and tries using it - Guy has INSANE-O amounts of problems with echo and general weirdness - Guy refuses to listen to the list to TRY KNOWN HARDWARE before optimizing - Guy insists that it's Asterisk that sucks At least for me, THIS is why I freaked out on people for buying the clone cards. Once you know what you're doing and what can cause problems and you have a good grasp on the fundamentals, buy any damn thing you want because you will have the experience and knowledge to determine the proper cause of the issue rather than bitch and moan about how asterisk sucks and it doesn't work and nobody wants to help. forming of FSF to solicit donations when people stopped paying $150 for a tape of emacs, and now the proposed GPL 3.0 to charge corporate users of GPL code who dont acutally distro a product (like google and ebay for example). Totally OT for this OT thread but I think that the GPL3 will fail; fall flat on its face. Personally I dont see a problem with any of this. If digium makes it too difficult to do stuff asterisk *can* be forked unless that is forbidden (because its GPL I didnt bother to look at forking issues Nope you can fork it, and in fact there have been several forks but AFAIK they've all died out due to lack of mindshare. -A. ___ 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: Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Saturday 11 June 2005 16:21, trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote: The GPL does not extend to the hardware or software that Asterisk talks to. For example, if you are using a SIP soft phone as a client for Asterisk, it is not a requirement that that program also be distributed under GPL. Additionally, AGI applications, which are simply launched by Asterisk and communicate No, but there was some talk about exactly what linking refers to. If you develop a 3rd party .so that asterisk loads, it does fall under the GPL; you can't make a wowie-gee CDR or call routing module and license it any way you please. Mark was at one point condidering the pros and cons of doing the same for the manager interface, but I haven't heard anything concrete since. -A. ___ 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
