[OT] Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 12:48:46PM -0700, Robert Hajime Lanning wrote: quote who=trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com; Protecting freedoms by putting limits on (thus restricting freedoms). Interesting concept. It maybe an interesting concept, but it is absolutely true. True anarchy (no rules what so ever) cannot exist. Actually, anarchy means absence of hierarchy. It does not mean no rules. The no rules was a slag by the monarchists who called the capitalist merchant class dangerous anarchists because they were causing all kinds of worry with their no rules free market ideas. Anarchist societies, where and when they exist, actually tend to be quite organized. -w ___ 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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Protecting freedoms by putting limits on (thus restricting freedoms). Interesting concept. I need to repeat here. The gpl's purpose is to protect the freedoms that comes with free software. So, you have only the freedoms that comes with free software as defined by the FSF. You are not allowed to do what you like. You are constrained to the freedoms that follows the software and I think that is a very interesting concept. copyright and license to use are different. I never claimed otherwise. You can technically put software out there with no copyright but under the gpl license Then there would be no one to enforce the license, which would be bad. it only restricts *their* code (ie modifications). Yes, but we also want all modifications to be free the cost of restricting freedoms on others and what they can do with their code Yes, by using the GPL you restrict everyone to the four freedoms defined in the free software definition. This is exactly what we want. The BSD license for example lets your code remain free while giving people the freedom to create code of their own, as a modification of yours, and use their code how they want. This is exactly the reason I choose GPL, because it doesn't allow people to do whatever they want. They only have the freedoms that comes with free software, which is exactly what we want. This ensures that the code stays free and any modification too it is also free. This is what we want and you obviously want something else. When we, the saints of the church of emacs, speaks about free software we are referring to the freedoms that comes with free software (nothing more, nothing less). Free software has a definite definition for us, which is that of the fsf. If people want your version they can always get that from you, and so it is intact as 'free'. Yes, but we also want the modifications to the software to be free. We basically want what's defined in the GPL. It does not give full unrestricted modification clauses. You can modify it as much as you want as long as the modifications also are free, just as the original code. proposed GPL 3.0 I rather not discuss GPL 3.0 before a draft. Your version which you released 'free' would still be there. In its unmodified glory. By using the GPL, we also ensure that any modification to it, be free. This is desired. The GPL does not ensure freedom to all It ensures the freedoms that are defined in the free software definition. it works like a parasite and infects future code Yes, this parasitic effect is exactly what we want. All it does is force others who write code to be assimilated into the same doctrine. Yes, which is exactly what we want. If you choose to use GPL code, you have to follow the rules. I guess what I am trying to say is that GPL does little to protect the original author The copyright protects the original author by law. it removes freedoms from subsequent authors by forcing them to license in the same way. Yes, and that's what I love about free software. The software stays free. it doesnt guarantee the freedom of subsequent authors, it curtails that freedom. Once again, it only guarantee freedoms that follow free software. And you can copyright (and infact do) without the GPL. Yes, but we use the gpl to protect the freedoms that follows free software. The GPL is *not* a copyright it is a license for use. They are very different things. You can copyright something and distro it without GPLing it. Indeed. The free software continues to be as free as the author wants. Yes, the copyright holder can do whatever he feels like with the code. Once he puts a GPL on it and release it, the code is free for ever and any modifications to it is also free. By holding the copyright, he can also choose to change the license, but only on the code that he holds the copyright of. The code that was released as free, however, stays free. it does however curtail the freedoms of any subsequent authors that enhance the code. Which again, it's the desired effect. subsequent authors now have *no* choice in how they license it, they are forced to license it the same way as you, which curtails freedom. Yes, glad you understand cause this is the purpose. The freedoms that follow free software will continue to follow it and neither you nor anyone else can change that. The modifications are the *only* difference between what you release and what they release, so if they use your code as a base and make changes to suit a particular need, their code, which they did write all of, cannot be licensed how they choose This is exactly what we want. the parasitic nature of the GPL means that their modifications, *their* code, must also be GPLed You're just explaining what we want. The GPL doesnt protect freedom, it curtails freedom of future developers. The GPL protects the
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 18:20 +0200, Esben Stien wrote: trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Protecting freedoms by putting limits on (thus restricting freedoms). Interesting concept. I need to repeat here. The gpl's purpose is to protect the freedoms that comes with free software. So, you have only the freedoms that comes with free software as defined by the FSF. You are not allowed to do what you like. You are constrained to the freedoms that follows the software and I think that is a very interesting concept. Its not a freedom if its a limit. That is my point. The GPL doesnt give freedoms it takes them away by putting limits on other peoples code, not the original authors. Now if the author is ok with infringing on the rights of others then the GPL is a good choice, however if the original author is truely fore freedom in the code process, not the double speak freedom that FSF talks about (where freedom means taking away abilities) then they should not follow like sheep and repeat what the FSF says (which on its face is an outright lie since its not freedom that it grants). copyright and license to use are different. I never claimed otherwise. If you were the person that was quoting the FSF as fact then you did. Too bad it got cut out, but you can always go back to the original post that was claiming freedom means putting limits on people other than yourself. You can technically put software out there with no copyright but under the gpl license Then there would be no one to enforce the license, which would be bad. Why do you cut out what I said when I addressed that point? I am begining to think that you are doing it intentionally now. it only restricts *their* code (ie modifications). Yes, but we also want all modifications to be free 'we' or you specifically? We is quite a loaded word. The FSF makes a false claim that it *protects* freedoms, when all it does is limit the freedoms of others to write code. Specifically if I take a program and modify it, the original is still under whatever license I got it in, but *my* code, the modifications are MINE not the original authors. The original author has NO right to claim that it is their work, nor do they have copyright on *my* code. But by releasing it under a GPL they can force me to use a license that I may not agree with. This is the reason that I dont contribute to GPL products, I dont like the idea of someone else dictating to me how I will distribute *my* code. The default GPL makes it a lciense violation to run GPL code on a commercial (or even BSD) system. Extra stuff has to be put into the GPL license to say 'its ok if you link this against non GPL libraries and such'. That is not the default, so technically unless someone did that putting a stock GPL license has other limitations on its mere use. At least historically libc on aix, hpux, sunos (4/5), irix were all not GPL libc (I dont know with solaris now they added a bunch of gpl stuff at one point). If any of the GPL licensed software did not take an overt action to say its ok to run it on those operating systems then its a license violation. That level of selective enforcement also calls into question the legal standing of the license (if certain sections are not enforced the whole agreement can be voided on first court challenge). http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCLinkingOverControlledInterface for linking proprietary code to libraries - overt actions required to make it work right http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLCommercially for reading up on how the license affects others who write code later http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLIncompatibleAlone for reading on how you cant really link against libc on a commercial operating system (or anything with a license that is not compatible with the GPL, which BSD isnt becuase it allows someone to take it, write *their own* code in addition to it and not give *their own* code out. Thus by default you cant run GPL software on a BSD licensed system, nor any commercial system *unless* the developer took an overt action to say this is ok (default GPL it is not ok). http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDistributeWithSourceOnInternet for the lack of personal privacy that the GPL forces on those that choose to release under it, specifically you *must* (section 3) provide a mailing address. If you value your privacy and dont want everyone to have your address you must pay extra to get a po box so that you, as the author of the software, can comply with section 3 of the GPL - providing copies by mailorder on physical media. This is *required* not optional. The list goes on... the cost of restricting freedoms on others and what they can do with their code Yes, by using the GPL you restrict everyone to the four freedoms defined in the free software definition. This is exactly what we want. Again with the
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
quote who=trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com; Protecting freedoms by putting limits on (thus restricting freedoms). Interesting concept. It maybe an interesting concept, but it is absolutely true. True anarchy (no rules what so ever) cannot exist. Your freedom to kill me would impose on my freedom to live. Lift all laws and the law of the universe seems to come into play. The strong rules the weak. You end up with a dictatorship. To keep something free, there must be a law stopping it from not becoming not free. (bad english, but there it is. :) ) -- And, did Guloka think the Ulus were too ugly to save? -Centauri ___ 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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
Esben Stien wrote: Yes, because digium has a dual license, you have to give up your copyright if you submit code to the project. This makes it possible to release a non free version in addition to the free one. Please read the text of the Digium Asterisk contribution disclaimers before making incorrect statements like this. Contributions to the Digium Asterisk tree do _not_, absolutely _not_ require the contributor to 'give up the their copyright'. That is one option, of course, like it is with any open-source project, but it is not the only option. The option that most contributors choose is the 'long form disclaimer', which gives Digium a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive license to use the contributor's code in any way it chooses to do so, but in no way takes over the copyright or limits what the contributor can do with their own code. In other words, the long form disclaimer means that any code you contribute to the Digium-maintained Asterisk tree is yours to do with as you wish, but Digium also has a license (not ownership) to use that code in any other distributions it may choose to make (open source or otherwise). ___ 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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
Kevin P. Fleming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please read the text of the Digium Asterisk contribution disclaimers before making incorrect statements like this. Yes, sorry, my wording was incorrect. You still have the code you've written and it's still free, but you give digium the right to release it as non free software, something which is unacceptable to me. The whole idea of free software is to ensure the freedom of the software, wherever it may go. As a side note, I have nothing against giving the fsf the copyright of my code, which is an organization I trust. -- 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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Sun, 2005-06-12 at 17:58 +0200, Esben Stien wrote: Kevin P. Fleming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please read the text of the Digium Asterisk contribution disclaimers before making incorrect statements like this. Yes, sorry, my wording was incorrect. You still have the code you've written and it's still free, but you give digium the right to release it as non free software, something which is unacceptable to me. The whole idea of free software is to ensure the freedom of the software, wherever it may go. Limits increase this freedom? I dont understand how placing limits on its use increases its freedom, could you please explain that to me? As a side note, I have nothing against giving the fsf the copyright of my code, which is an organization I trust. I dont, proposed gpl 3.0 is to make GPLed code a commercial product. I will actually bet money that the payments goto the FSF rather than to the copyright holder, but as gpl 3.0 is still 'secret' (one of the (5?) reviewers came out with the charging commercial users of the code).. -- 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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Limits increase this freedom? I dont understand how placing limits on its use increases its freedom, could you please explain that to me? The limits are put on people to ensure that the software stays free; that's a big part of the idea here. Free software is much a matter of definition and when most of us talk about free software, we talk about it in the way it's defined by the free software foundation. The gpl's purpose is to protect the freedoms that comes with free software. Putting a program in the public domain, uncopyrighted allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software. They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away. The aim of the copyleft, the gpl, is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting this software in the public domain, it get's ``copylefted'. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has the freedoms defined in the free software definition. Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users' freedom; the gpl is to guarantee their freedom. So, clearly there is a need for the gpl, in my opinion. With these limits, the free software stays free. proposed gpl 3.0 I'd rather not discuss version 3 until a draft is available. PS: ``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important. One can use ``copyleft'' to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. -- 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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Sun, 2005-06-12 at 22:05 +0200, Esben Stien wrote: trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Limits increase this freedom? I dont understand how placing limits on its use increases its freedom, could you please explain that to me? The limits are put on people to ensure that the software stays free; that's a big part of the idea here. Free software is much a matter of definition and when most of us talk about free software, we talk about it in the way it's defined by the free software foundation. The gpl's purpose is to protect the freedoms that comes with free software. Protecting freedoms by putting limits on (thus restricting freedoms). Interesting concept. Putting a program in the public domain, uncopyrighted allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software. They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away. copyright and license to use are different. The GPL is a license for use, not a copyright. You can technically put software out there with no copyright but under the gpl license (although that would make it more or less meaningless). And if the software you put out is sent out how you want it limiting people on what they can do with it does nothing to ensure that *your* code is 'free' it only restricts *their* code (ie modifications). Your code can remain as free as you choose to make it, the GPL does allow for that at the cost of restricting freedoms on others and what they can do with their code, albeit based off yours. The BSD license for example lets your code remain free while giving people the freedom to create code of their own, as a modification of yours, and use their code how they want. If people want your version they can always get that from you, and so it is intact as 'free'. The aim of the copyleft, the gpl, is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting this software in the public domain, it get's ``copylefted'. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has the freedoms defined in the free software definition. It does not give full unrestricted modification clauses. And proposed GPL 3.0 makes it worse to the point that if you modify code for internal commercial use (ie you dont distribute anything, much like google and ebay do not redistribute their software) you have to pay money (most likely to the FSF, wonder if donations are slipping). The freedom of users of modified code may be curtailed, but *only* the modifications would be restricted. Your version which you released 'free' would still be there. In its unmodified glory. The GPL does not ensure freedom to all, only that it works like a parasite and infects future code written that enhances existing code bases. It does not protect the original author in this way becuase the original authors code would still be freely available. All it does is force others who write code to be assimilated into the same doctrine. I guess what I am trying to say is that GPL does little to protect the original author, instead it removes freedoms from subsequent authors by forcing them to license in the same way. Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users' freedom; the gpl is to guarantee their freedom. But it doesnt guarantee the freedom of subsequent authors, it curtails that freedom. And you can copyright (and infact do) without the GPL., The GPL is *not* a copyright it is a license for use. They are very different things. You can copyright something and distro it without GPLing it. So, clearly there is a need for the gpl, in my opinion. With these limits, the free software stays free. The free software continues to be as free as the author wants. The GPL does little to enhance that freedom, it does however curtail the freedoms of any subsequent authors that enhance the code. Your original code will be free becuase you choose to make it free, subsequent authors now have *no* choice in how they license it, they are forced to license it the same way as you, which curtails freedom. The modifications are the *only* difference between what you release and what they release, so if they use your code as a base and make changes to suit a particular need, their code, which they did write all of, cannot be licensed how they choose, instead it must be licensed how you choose. And the parasitic nature of the GPL means that their
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
William Waites [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So this is a version of Asterisk that is released by Digium but is not released under the GPL. Correct? Yes, because digium has a dual license, you have to give up your copyright if you submit code to the project. This makes it possible to release a non free version in addition to the free one. If it were released under the GPL, the source code would be available. Correct? It is under the GPL, but as developers give up their copyright, digium has the right to release this same code as non-free software. So Digium has leveraged the community to build for them a proprietary product. Correct? Yes, you can say that. This is also a reason why many free software developers has not jumped on this project. Maybe we'll see a fork some day where we can contribute code without giving up on the copyright. It is this mix of copyrighted gpl code that protects it's freedom. When you own the entire copyright on a project, you can easily change it. The code that has been released as free software will however always be free, but as you have the copyright, you can also release this code as non free (in addition). -- 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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
Andrew Kohlsmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know, I've got no problem with them dual-licensing it. It means the project will receive less contribution from free software developers. I certainly would not give up my copyright on free software so that someone else could release it as non free software. I am saving a pile of money In my opinion, the freedom should outweigh this. I would gladly donate this saved money to this project if this dual license issue didn't exist, as I do with many other projects. If they want to sell a version for big money to people who have more money than time, that's just fine by me. There is nothing wrong with selling free software. Nah, you just come across as I want it for free, and Digium has no right to make a buck off other's contributions. This is not really what he says. He's worried about his free software contribution being offered to third parties as non free software. Money is not an issue here. Nobody at Digium puts a gun to anyone's head to make them contribute for free. Well, it was just a question he had. I feel that blasting Digium for excercising their right to do this is in poor taste, though. I must have missed this blasting. -- 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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Saturday 11 June 2005 12:12, Esben Stien wrote: It means the project will receive less contribution from free software developers. I certainly would not give up my copyright on free software so that someone else could release it as non free software. Only to those who agree with your views. While I will *NOT* say we've got enough contributors, I can say that we're doing pretty good with the people who agree with their policies thus far. (We == the asterisk community) I am saving a pile of money In my opinion, the freedom should outweigh this. I would gladly donate this saved money to this project if this dual license issue didn't exist, as I do with many other projects. Six of one, half dozen of the other, IMO. I don't adhere to a lot of what RMS rants and raves about, but those types are required to drive the effort to the far right so that we can have some semblance of a middle. :-) This is not really what he says. He's worried about his free software contribution being offered to third parties as non free software. Money is not an issue here. That's why Digium requires your code to be disclaimed. If you don't agree, you don't disclaim and your code stays out of the dual-licensed software and everyone's happy. I feel that blasting Digium for excercising their right to do this is in poor taste, though. I must have missed this blasting. It was a kind of passive-agressive blasting, I'll admit. -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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 12:44 -0400, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: On Saturday 11 June 2005 12:12, Esben Stien wrote: It means the project will receive less contribution from free software developers. I certainly would not give up my copyright on free software so that someone else could release it as non free software. Only to those who agree with your views. While I will *NOT* say we've got enough contributors, I can say that we're doing pretty good with the people who agree with their policies thus far. (We == the asterisk community) 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. 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. 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. 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. This is not really what he says. He's worried about his free software contribution being offered to third parties as non free software. Money is not an issue here. That's why Digium requires your code to be disclaimed. If you don't agree, you don't disclaim and your code stays out of the dual-licensed software and everyone's happy. Ahh so they are all about individual choice instead of forcing everyone else to be assimilated into one way of thinking. Interesting concept, this freedom and choice thing. Being American I am unaccustomed to such freedoms and choices. My head begins to spin with the concept! -- 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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Peter Nixon wrote: On Monday 30 May 2005 13:28, Matteo Brancaleoni wrote: and , what is more interesting, they've omitted any reference to digium resellers and specified only distributors :( Yes. Our reseller info was removed. And some of our customers have been sold to directly.. Not a nice way to do business :-( On the other hand, as an end customer I rarely see the need for the resellers, except as a cost-adding man in the middle. The distributors usually add value in that they clear customs and keep stock. To me, the supply chain ideally is manufacturer - distributor - customer or manufacturer - distributor - integrator - customer. Resellers have their place in mass market products. Peter ___ 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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
Peter Nixon wrote: Lets get our facts straight shall we. It appears that the FIRST ever hardware suported by Asterisk was Sangoma ;-) Well, Sangoma Frame-Relay hardware, that's true... I was thinking purely of TDM voice hardware, sorry for the confusion. It's been an exceedingly long time since Asterisk even support voice-over-frame at all, so saying that asterisk was developed on sangoma hardware is quite misleading, since 90% of what Asterisk is today did not exist when it was being used on the voice-over-frame cards. ___ 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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 10:06:02PM -0400, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: On Sunday 29 May 2005 20:59, Aidan Van Dyk wrote: 1) Simply CVS head (as of some point in time) with certain features or bug fixes backed out 2) In addition to CVS head, some important features and bug fixes. I think it's simply #2. They are taking HEAD and maintaining a version where they are extraordinarily careful about what goes in. Similar to what stable was supposed to be. So is there at least a cvs tag? Can I cvs co -r ABE asterisk? -w -- William Waites, Consulting Technologist Consultants Ars Informatica S.A.R.F. [EMAIL PROTECTED] / +1 416 848 1527 x514 +1 514 963 4096 (Direct) ___ 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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Monday 06 June 2005 11:25, William Waites wrote: So is there at least a cvs tag? Can I cvs co -r ABE asterisk? Honestly, what part of the source is not available do you have trouble comprehending? -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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 12:20:13PM -0400, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: On Monday 06 June 2005 11:25, William Waites wrote: So is there at least a cvs tag? Can I cvs co -r ABE asterisk? Honestly, what part of the source is not available do you have trouble comprehending? Sorry, due to the high traffic on these lists, I didn't read the entire thread. So this is a version of Asterisk that is released by Digium but is not released under the GPL. Correct? If it were released under the GPL, the source code would be available. Correct? So Digium has leveraged the community to build for them a proprietary product. Correct? Nice. -w -- William Waites, Consulting Technologist Consultants Ars Informatica S.A.R.F. [EMAIL PROTECTED] / +1 416 848 1527 x514 +1 514 963 4096 (Direct) ___ 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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
William Waites wrote: So Digium has leveraged the community to build for them a proprietary product. Correct? Nice. Give me a break. Digium has Open-Sourced their primary intellectual property and given it to the community. They spend a good portion of their corporate cashflow on programmers and support personnel to keep the Open Source project moving forward. The current Asterisk CVS and Stable code bases are 100% Open Source, and will be forever, as per the terms of the GPL. Yet never to fear, you are right there in everyone's faces, trying to impugn Mark and Digium and the infrastructure that has brought forth this wonderful program for us to use FOR FREE, simply because they are trying to find a way to use their IP as a means of supporting their corporate mission. I can't decide whether it's your audacity or your cynicism that is more repugnant. I guess each reader will have to decide for himself. 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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Monday 06 June 2005 13:29, William Waites wrote: So this is a version of Asterisk that is released by Digium but is not released under the GPL. Correct? Not quite. This is a specific set of CVS with NO NEW FEATURES that is not released under GPL. There is nothing in ABE that is not also in HEAD. All ABE is is a specific snapshot that they maintain independently. You just don't get to know exactly what the binary doesn't have. If it were released under the GPL, the source code would be available. Correct? Asterisk is dual-licensed. Always has been. So Digium has leveraged the community to build for them a proprietary product. Correct? Nice. Others have commented on this, so I'll refrain short of saying you need some serious clue. I'm not sure I see your name in any of the CVS commit logs, so other than whinging on about it, what really do you have to say? -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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 03:31:31PM -0400, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: So Digium has leveraged the community to build for them a proprietary product. Correct? Nice. Others have commented on this, so I'll refrain short of saying you need some serious clue. I'm not sure I see your name in any of the CVS commit logs, so other than whinging on about it, what really do you have to say? If you're interested, take a closer look. chan_sip.c, some time ago. Miscellaneous bug fixes. But a whole lot, and not for a long time. The reason for the not for a long time is because I feared that Digium would create a proprietary version. The disclaimers seemed to explicitly allow for that. It was claimed at the time that this wouldn't happen, but now it apparently has. Unfortunately. Though I may have written bluntly, the fact that people are resorting to ad hominem attacks, suggests that I have a point. -w ___ 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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 05:11:42PM -0400, William Waites wrote: If you're interested, take a closer look. chan_sip.c, some time ago. Miscellaneous bug fixes. But a whole lot, and not for a long time. ^^ should read not a whole lot. argh. 73 -w ___ 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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Monday 06 June 2005 17:11, William Waites wrote: If you're interested, take a closer look. chan_sip.c, some time ago. Miscellaneous bug fixes. But a whole lot, and not for a long time. I stand corrected; thanks for taking me to task on it. :-) The reason for the not for a long time is because I feared that Digium would create a proprietary version. The disclaimers seemed to explicitly allow for that. It was claimed at the time that this wouldn't happen, but now it apparently has. Unfortunately. I don't know, I've got no problem with them dual-licensing it. I am saving a pile of money and getting a ton of features I'd never have in my normal PBX, plus I can piss around with phone system internals. If Asterisk didn't give away their code and let others have the chance at forking it and making a ton of money, I'd never have that opportunity. If they want to sell a version for big money to people who have more money than time, that's just fine by me. Though I may have written bluntly, the fact that people are resorting to ad hominem attacks, suggests that I have a point. Nah, you just come across as I want it for free, and Digium has no right to make a buck off other's contributions. Nobody at Digium puts a gun to anyone's head to make them contribute for free. If the itch is strong enough, people scratch it. The itch wasn't strong enough for you, and that's your choice. I feel that blasting Digium for excercising their right to do this is in poor taste, though. -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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
I understand and agree with Digium on the ABE. I have worked with C level execs that only care about mitigation (AKA not their problem if it breaks) and warranties. This is just Asterisk in a shinny make you feel good box with phone support. On 6/6/05, Andrew Kohlsmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 06 June 2005 17:11, William Waites wrote: If you're interested, take a closer look. chan_sip.c, some time ago. Miscellaneous bug fixes. But a whole lot, and not for a long time. I stand corrected; thanks for taking me to task on it. :-) The reason for the not for a long time is because I feared that Digium would create a proprietary version. The disclaimers seemed to explicitly allow for that. It was claimed at the time that this wouldn't happen, but now it apparently has. Unfortunately. I don't know, I've got no problem with them dual-licensing it. I am saving a pile of money and getting a ton of features I'd never have in my normal PBX, plus I can piss around with phone system internals. If Asterisk didn't give away their code and let others have the chance at forking it and making a ton of money, I'd never have that opportunity. If they want to sell a version for big money to people who have more money than time, that's just fine by me. Though I may have written bluntly, the fact that people are resorting to ad hominem attacks, suggests that I have a point. Nah, you just come across as I want it for free, and Digium has no right to make a buck off other's contributions. Nobody at Digium puts a gun to anyone's head to make them contribute for free. If the itch is strong enough, people scratch it. The itch wasn't strong enough for you, and that's your choice. I feel that blasting Digium for excercising their right to do this is in poor taste, though. -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 -- sig Andrew Latham - AKA: LATHAMA (lay-th-ham-eh) WWW: http://lathama.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] If any of the above are down we have bigger problems than my email! /sig ___ 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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
Aidan Van Dyk wrote: In either case, since they are committed to the open source model, are they willing to tell us what features/bug fixes in CVS are considered an increased liability and risk, or what important features and bug fixes they've applied on top of CVS? This could help those of us trying to build stable, robust, asterisk-based solutions promote asterisk as a stable, robust, low-risk platform. There is absolutely _no_ code in ABE that is not in CVS HEAD, except for the code related to license control required for the commercial product and an installer (since it's a binary distribution). We have not, and will not, put any bug fixes or new features into ABE that do not go into CVS HEAD as well (and in fact I don't think there's any situation where a feature would go into ABE first). Simply stated, ABE is a supported, documented, tested and commercially packaged/licensed version of Asterisk, designed for companies who want such a package. It is missing quite a number of features from CVS HEAD that were deemed unnecessary and/or difficult to support, and it will not be updated as often as CVS HEAD itself is (or even as often as the stable releases are made), from what I understand. It does not come with source code, nor is the exact source code available to anyone outside of Digium, which is done purely for support reasons. ABE users can call Digium support and the support staff will know _exactly_ what they are running, since it is a packaged release. ___ 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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
Aidan Van Dyk wrote: If they are fixing things in ABE that are broken in Open Source, and not simply backing out features, they why aren't these bug fixes in the open source version? As stated in my other reply, this is very much untrue. There are no fixes applied to ABE (or new features, for that matter) that don't originate from CVS HEAD. I've just not been impressed with Digium's behaviour lately. They've gotten quite hostile over Sangoma hardware lately, claiming that Sangoma (by continuing to develop, refine, and expand their hardware lines, which are much older than asterisk, and which asterisk was originally developed on) are just ripping them off. If anything, Digium is ripping people off with hardware which is inferior (though I've seen claims that they have some good new stuff coming - excellent!). Exactly where did you hear that Asterisk was originally developed on Sangoma hardware? Nothing could be farther from the truth; the very earliest Asterisk code supported some funky Voice-over-Frame-Relay hardware, then it was modified to support the Zapata hardware from the Zapata open source hardware group. Digium has never had any drivers for Sangoma hardware, and still doesn't. Any Asterisk support for Sangoma hardware has been built by Sangoma. And yes, we do have some exciting new hardware in the works... we hope that you all will be as happy to buy/use it as we are to develop it! ___ 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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
and , what is more interesting, they've omitted any reference to digium resellers and specified only distributors :( matteo -- Matteo Brancaleoni System Administrator Tel +39.02.70633354 Sip [EMAIL PROTECTED] Iax2 [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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
Matteo Brancaleoni wrote: and , what is more interesting, they've omitted any reference to digium resellers and specified only distributors :( Yah that's kinda bad form. And seeing as I know for a fact that the distributors will sell directly to my customers even though we're in different countries... -- Cheers, Matt Riddell ___ http://www.sineapps.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html) http://www.sineapps.com/rssfeed.php (Daily Asterisk News - rss) ___ 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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
On Sunday 29 May 2005 20:59, Aidan Van Dyk wrote: 1) Simply CVS head (as of some point in time) with certain features or bug fixes backed out 2) In addition to CVS head, some important features and bug fixes. I think it's simply #2. They are taking HEAD and maintaining a version where they are extraordinarily careful about what goes in. Similar to what stable was supposed to be. In either case, since they are committed to the open source model, are they willing to tell us what features/bug fixes in CVS are considered an increased liability and risk, or what important features and bug fixes they've applied on top of CVS? This could help those of us trying to build stable, robust, asterisk-based solutions promote asterisk as a stable, robust, low-risk platform. I fail to see why that's necessary. They're simply doing what anyone deciding not to run HEAD or stable should be doing. Seems to be a bit of double-talk going on here... Howso? -A. BTW I am *not* trashing drumkilla (the stable maintainer) -- it's just that stable is feature-stable, not necessarily bugfree. ___ 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: Digium Website Update: Asterisk Business Edition
Aidan Van Dyk wrote: Browsing through the new website... * Q - Does Asterisk Business Edition contain any additional features, fixes, or enhancements not found in the open source versions of Asterisk? * A - Digium remains committed to the open source model, and has based Asterisk Business Edition entirely on the open source tree. However, no single release of the Open Source version corresponds to Asterisk Business Edition, since its features and bug fixes have been carefully chosen to increase reliability and decrease risk. Hmm, so Asterisk Business edition is: 1) Simply CVS head (as of some point in time) with certain features or bug fixes backed out 2) In addition to CVS head, some important features and bug fixes. In either case, since they are committed to the open source model, are they willing to tell us what features/bug fixes in CVS are considered an increased liability and risk, or what important features and bug fixes they've applied on top of CVS? This could help those of us trying to build stable, robust, asterisk-based solutions promote asterisk as a stable, robust, low-risk platform. Seems to be a bit of double-talk going on here... a. Just coming back from ISPCon, I can tell you that the hardest questions to answer were those related to ABE: Random Questioner: So what is this Asterisk Business Edition? My Answer: ABE is a stable, supported version of Asterisk for use in commercial environments. DOH! By saying that ABE is stable, you are automatically implying that the normal Asterisk tree is in fact, unstable. I know Asterisk is stable (even HEAD is most of the time), and we all know that Asterisk is stable, but CTO from some-random-company does not know that. Time for another try: Q: So what is this Asterisk Business Edition? A: ABE is an official, supported version of Asterisk provided with documentation in a more traditional format (i.e. boxed). It sounds better, but I don't know how accurate it is. Either way, that was the question that I liked the least... -- Kristian Kielhofner ___ 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
