Re: [asterisk-users] Re: Asterisk Faxing Support
On Feb 8, 2007, at 6:55 AM, Tomislav Parčina wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] says... Asterisk 1.2 has no support of t.38 whatsoever, the call will drop before t.38 is ever utilised, not even pass-thru. 1.4 Adds support for T.38 pass through only and no other sort of faxing, the endpoint must support T.38 and you must send your call to a T.38 gateway and you must not use NAT anywhere in your network and you must enable re-invites which could cause CDRs not to reflect the true details of the call. Asterisk/Digium also has no interest in any further interest in expanding T.38 or faxing support in Asterisk. Steve Underwood and the other fine persons that have helped to develop the software DSPs and other stuff required for FoIP support also have no interest in writing any further faxing support for Asterisk (RxFax, TxFax + the newest span_dsp wont even compile, much less work under Asterisk any more) probably because they know it will never be included into the Asterisk code. Someone please tell me this isn't truth. Of course this isn't true. We never, ever, deny good patches. What reason would we not be interested in having fax support in asterisk? We just don't maintain or own those patches, so we are limited to what we can do with them. Matthew Fredrickson ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [asterisk-users] Re: Asterisk Faxing Support
Matthew, ok, but is realy possible change the dsp code in the Asterisk? Guys around The OpenPBX change the dsp to Steve's spandsp and has the native T38 support now. Tomas Urbanek -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Fredrickson Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 6:18 PM To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Re: Asterisk Faxing Support On Feb 8, 2007, at 6:55 AM, Tomislav Parčina wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] says... Asterisk 1.2 has no support of t.38 whatsoever, the call will drop before t.38 is ever utilised, not even pass-thru. 1.4 Adds support for T.38 pass through only and no other sort of faxing, the endpoint must support T.38 and you must send your call to a T.38 gateway and you must not use NAT anywhere in your network and you must enable re-invites which could cause CDRs not to reflect the true details of the call. Asterisk/Digium also has no interest in any further interest in expanding T.38 or faxing support in Asterisk. Steve Underwood and the other fine persons that have helped to develop the software DSPs and other stuff required for FoIP support also have no interest in writing any further faxing support for Asterisk (RxFax, TxFax + the newest span_dsp wont even compile, much less work under Asterisk any more) probably because they know it will never be included into the Asterisk code. Someone please tell me this isn't truth. Of course this isn't true. We never, ever, deny good patches. What reason would we not be interested in having fax support in asterisk? We just don't maintain or own those patches, so we are limited to what we can do with them. Matthew Fredrickson ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Re: Asterisk Faxing Support
Lee Howard wrote: Yes, I do suspect that Digium sees things this way. Maybe I'm too much of a free-thinker - too believing in the open-source philosophy, but I would like to think that this is not neccesarily true. I would like to think that they could host and support a non-disclaimed GPL Asterisk - having features that ABE does not - and they would profit from that. Still, they could ask for disclaimers, and undoubtedly many, many people here love Digium enough to do that even if they aren't required to do so in order to see their contribution integrated upstream. In the cases where a contributor will not disclaim the contribution to Digium then Digium could make some attempt to obtain a license for ABE from the contributor (and I expect that this case would be extremely rare - but perhaps appropriate for cases like spandsp/rxfax/txfax), Digium could write their own rendition of the contribution, or ABE could just do without it. The way I see it, if Asterisk improves or gets some new feature or increases its exposure then Digium (and every other business commercially involved with Asterisk) will benefit more from that than if the improvement had not taken place. Certainly I think that it's fair to say that some contributions will not be disclaimed in the scenario I outlined that would have been disclaimed in the present scenario. I think that depends on how well Digium does on keeping the Asterisk users loyal and willing to repay them in kind. However, in the end, even if they don't do a good job at that, I think that a better Asterisk means a happier Digium... even if that means that there is some differences between ABE and Asterisk GPL. I couldn't agree more with this. I also think that they could charge the same amount for commercial support (and not the actual product) of Asterisk with a certain feature set (i.e., similar to ABE today) and make just as much money, if not more, than now. This whole concept being similar to RedHat. I may be mistaken, but I don't think they have dual licenses. I was under the impression that RedHat sold support for RedHat Linux, not the actual product. Then again, what do I know? There's no MBA diploma hanging on my wall. ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Re: Asterisk Faxing Support
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 06:12:03AM -0600, Lacy Moore wrote: Lee Howard wrote: Certainly I think that it's fair to say that some contributions will not be disclaimed in the scenario I outlined that would have been disclaimed in the present scenario. I think that depends on how well Digium does on keeping the Asterisk users loyal and willing to repay them in kind. However, in the end, even if they don't do a good job at that, I think that a better Asterisk means a happier Digium... even if that means that there is some differences between ABE and Asterisk GPL. I couldn't agree more with this. I also think that they could charge the same amount for commercial support (and not the actual product) of Asterisk with a certain feature set (i.e., similar to ABE today) and make just as much money, if not more, than now. This whole concept being similar to RedHat. I may be mistaken, but I don't think they have dual licenses. I was under the impression that RedHat sold support for RedHat Linux, not the actual product. No. RedHat publish the full sources (as easily-rebuildable source packages) to all the packages in RHEL. This is why CentOS is possible. Digium may just as well *bundle* code of that sort in Asterisk (e.g: as a separate AGI script, or whatever). The pproblem is that linking such a code into Asterisk makes it (for the common interpertation of the copyrights laws) a part of Asterisk. So Digium cannot use exactly the same strategy as RedHat if it wants to allow people to link propietary modules with Asterisk. And this is the major difference. -- Tzafrir Cohen icq#16849755jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +972-50-7952406 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.xorcom.com iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Re: Asterisk Faxing Support
Am 10.02.2007 um 14:06 schrieb Tzafrir Cohen: No. RedHat publish the full sources (as easily-rebuildable source packages) to all the packages in RHEL. This is why CentOS is possible. Digium may just as well *bundle* code of that sort in Asterisk (e.g: as a separate AGI script, or whatever). The pproblem is that linking such a code into Asterisk makes it (for the common interpertation of the copyrights laws) a part of Asterisk. So Digium cannot use exactly the same strategy as RedHat if it wants to allow people to link propietary modules with Asterisk. And this is the major difference. An other difference is that the dual license gives Digium the possibility to sell their code to other PBX vendors which might like to delete the word Asterisk or Digium out of their end product. MySQL does the same. Stefan -- amooma GmbH - Bachstr. 126 - 56566 Neuwied - http://www.amooma.de Let's use IT to solve problems and not to create new ones. Asterisk? - http://www.das-asterisk-buch.de Geschäftsführer: Stefan Wintermeyer Handelsregister: Neuwied B 14998 ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Re: Asterisk Faxing Support
Justin Newman wrote: We have considered working on this. T38 is a short term solution, though. Justin Newman Why would it be interesting to you to implement T.38? It seems you are also someone who doesn't disclaim code and get it into SVN. Steve -- From: Tomislav Par?ina [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [asterisk-users] Re: Asterisk Faxing Support In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] says... Asterisk 1.2 has no support of t.38 whatsoever, the call will drop before t.38 is ever utilised, not even pass-thru. 1.4 Adds support for T.38 pass through only and no other sort of faxing, the endpoint must support T.38 and you must send your call to a T.38 gateway and you must not use NAT anywhere in your network and you must enable re-invites which could cause CDRs not to reflect the true details of the call. Asterisk/Digium also has no interest in any further interest in expanding T.38 or faxing support in Asterisk. Steve Underwood and the other fine persons that have helped to develop the software DSPs and other stuff required for FoIP support also have no interest in writing any further faxing support for Asterisk (RxFax, TxFax + the newest span_dsp wont even compile, much less work under Asterisk any more) probably because they know it will never be included into the Asterisk code. Someone please tell me this isn't truth. ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Re: Asterisk Faxing Support
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 02:57:51PM +0100, Stefan Wintermeyer wrote: Am 10.02.2007 um 14:06 schrieb Tzafrir Cohen: No. RedHat publish the full sources (as easily-rebuildable source packages) to all the packages in RHEL. This is why CentOS is possible. Digium may just as well *bundle* code of that sort in Asterisk (e.g: as a separate AGI script, or whatever). The pproblem is that linking such a code into Asterisk makes it (for the common interpertation of the copyrights laws) a part of Asterisk. So Digium cannot use exactly the same strategy as RedHat if it wants to allow people to link propietary modules with Asterisk. And this is the major difference. An other difference is that the dual license gives Digium the possibility to sell their code to other PBX vendors which might like to delete the word Asterisk or Digium out of their end product. MySQL does the same. Redhat does the same: but the license is GPL. Their trademark guidelines clarify, that if you have changes the software, it is OK to freely redistribute modified copies, as long as you change some small bits in the distributions that include logos and such. This is how CentOS and co. work. And recently a little company called Oracle started to sell its own Redhat-based distribution. Redhat is probably in a rather unique position where they can use basically solely their trademark as a main selling point. Having done that, they publish much code under the terms of the GPL, and would always appreciate others helping them with writing, debugging and maintaining it. Anyway, I'm sure that this is not the right teach Digium how to succeed. Even if they actually needed lessons. -- Tzafrir Cohen icq#16849755jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +972-50-7952406 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.xorcom.com iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Re: Asterisk Faxing Support
What is the difference between using my proprietary asterisk-add on than to using my proprietary email client (Microsoft Outlook) with my GPL IMAP servers? You guys need to drop your BS elitist point of view, It isn't your software, its talking to your software like any other software does, the license of that software has nothing to do with it. On 2/10/07, Tzafrir Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. RedHat publish the full sources (as easily-rebuildable source packages) to all the packages in RHEL. This is why CentOS is possible. Digium may just as well *bundle* code of that sort in Asterisk (e.g: as a separate AGI script, or whatever). The pproblem is that linking such a code into Asterisk makes it (for the common interpertation of the copyrights laws) a part of Asterisk. So Digium cannot use exactly the same strategy as RedHat if it wants to allow people to link propietary modules with Asterisk. And this is the major difference. ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Re: Asterisk Faxing Support
I'm not here to flame anybody. Please see the replies in-line. Try to actually read them. On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 01:19:30PM -0500, Andrew Joakimsen wrote: On 2/10/07, Tzafrir Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. RedHat publish the full sources (as easily-rebuildable source packages) to all the packages in RHEL. This is why CentOS is possible. Digium may just as well *bundle* code of that sort in Asterisk (e.g: as a separate AGI script, or whatever). The pproblem is that linking such a code into Asterisk makes it (for the common interpertation of the copyrights laws) a part of Asterisk. So Digium cannot use exactly the same strategy as RedHat if it wants to allow people to link propietary modules with Asterisk. And this is the major difference. What is the difference between using my proprietary asterisk-add on than to using my proprietary email client (Microsoft Outlook) with my GPL IMAP servers? Depends what type of asterisk-addon. If it only communicates with Asterisk through AGI, the manager interface and/or changing the configuration (files/realtime), then it is basically the same as using a proprietary mail client with a free mail server. OTOH, if the addon is an Asterisk application, function or whatever asterisk module, it actually uses code from Asterisk when it is loaded. Therefore it is considered as a art that is based on the code of Asterisk. This funny term art is used because this is covered by the copyrights laws. I can give you a complete lecture here on the meaning of this, but a quick search will probably get you some good answers as well. I personally don't like proprietary software, and think it is basically a source of problems in the long run, but if you follow my posts you'll see that I don't try to force this opinion on others. You guys need to drop your BS elitist point of view, It isn't your software, its talking to your software like any other software does, the license of that software has nothing to do with it. As I pointed out in another post, I tried to explain how things are, not to give an advice to Digium. I know Digium has some smart people of its own :-) . -- Tzafrir Cohen icq#16849755jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +972-50-7952406 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.xorcom.com iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Re: Asterisk Faxing Support
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 13:55 +0100, Tomislav Parčina wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] says... Asterisk 1.2 has no support of t.38 whatsoever, the call will drop before t.38 is ever utilised, not even pass-thru. 1.4 Adds support for T.38 pass through only and no other sort of faxing, the endpoint must support T.38 and you must send your call to a T.38 gateway and you must not use NAT anywhere in your network and you must enable re-invites which could cause CDRs not to reflect the true details of the call. Asterisk/Digium also has no interest in any further interest in expanding T.38 or faxing support in Asterisk. Steve Underwood and the other fine persons that have helped to develop the software DSPs and other stuff required for FoIP support also have no interest in writing any further faxing support for Asterisk (RxFax, TxFax + the newest span_dsp wont even compile, much less work under Asterisk any more) probably because they know it will never be included into the Asterisk code. Someone please tell me this isn't truth. Afaik it is true that it will not be included in the Asterisk source because Steve will not disclaim the code to Digium (which he off course is entitled to). I compiled the latest spandsp (iirc 0.0.3pre27) on a FC6 box and it compiles fine. On Steve's website there are versions of app_rxfax and app_txfax for 1.4. Takes some messing around with the 1.4 build system to get them included but it worked for me last night. Those apps can be found here: http://www.soft-switch.org/downloads/snapshots/spandsp/test-apps-asterisk-1.4/ From reading this list it seems you are better off using iaxmodem and Hylafax (I guess that it assuming the fax comes in via TDM on the Asterisk box). Or check out OpenPBX.org as they have done much work on T.38 support (visit irc channel #openpbx on freenode.net to talk about the current status). Hope this helps. Regards, Patrick ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Re: Asterisk Faxing Support
It's not that Digium don't want fax or t.38 support, it's just that it is not very likely for Steve Underwood to provide it for Asterisk. I'm sure that Digium are very keen for someone to write and contribute t.38 code for Asterisk, it's just that there aren't very many people with the required knowledge and willingness to contribute in that area. The reasons are sorta complex, but as I understand it there are two issues. Spandsp will not be included in Asterisk as Steve will not disclaim the it to Digium, preferring to keep his code under GPL. Likewise, Digium won't accept code that isn't disclaimed - Spandsp could never be included in ABE for example without a disclaimer and it wouldn't make business sense for Digium to have code in the free distribution that can't be in their commercial distribution. The second issue is that it is often very difficult to have code accepted into trunk. An example of this is the t.38 related code that Steve was working on for Asterisk in late 2005. Whilst not directly spandsp, these were backend changes inside asterisk that were required in order to interface t.38 into asterisk. Eventually he gave up and is now focussing his efforts on openpbx which is pure gpl and is easier to get code into trunk, so sort of a path of least resistance - why try to get code into asterisk when it is easier to get it into the fork. Fow now, it is easiest to use hylafax / spandsp with asterisk. The majority of the hard work has been done and Lee Howard is very responsive to user queries. Anyhow, thats my understanding and I could be way off the mark. Craig - Original Message - From: Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion asterisk-users@lists.digium.com Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:42 PM Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Re: Asterisk Faxing Support On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 13:55 +0100, Tomislav Parčina wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] says... Asterisk 1.2 has no support of t.38 whatsoever, the call will drop before t.38 is ever utilised, not even pass-thru. 1.4 Adds support for T.38 pass through only and no other sort of faxing, the endpoint must support T.38 and you must send your call to a T.38 gateway and you must not use NAT anywhere in your network and you must enable re-invites which could cause CDRs not to reflect the true details of the call. Asterisk/Digium also has no interest in any further interest in expanding T.38 or faxing support in Asterisk. Steve Underwood and the other fine persons that have helped to develop the software DSPs and other stuff required for FoIP support also have no interest in writing any further faxing support for Asterisk (RxFax, TxFax + the newest span_dsp wont even compile, much less work under Asterisk any more) probably because they know it will never be included into the Asterisk code. Someone please tell me this isn't truth. Afaik it is true that it will not be included in the Asterisk source because Steve will not disclaim the code to Digium (which he off course is entitled to). I compiled the latest spandsp (iirc 0.0.3pre27) on a FC6 box and it compiles fine. On Steve's website there are versions of app_rxfax and app_txfax for 1.4. Takes some messing around with the 1.4 build system to get them included but it worked for me last night. Those apps can be found here: http://www.soft-switch.org/downloads/snapshots/spandsp/test-apps-asterisk-1.4/ From reading this list it seems you are better off using iaxmodem and Hylafax (I guess that it assuming the fax comes in via TDM on the Asterisk box). Or check out OpenPBX.org as they have done much work on T.38 support (visit irc channel #openpbx on freenode.net to talk about the current status). Hope this helps. Regards, Patrick ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Re: Asterisk Faxing Support
Craig Guy wrote: it wouldn't make business sense for Digium to have code in the free distribution that can't be in their commercial distribution. Yes, I do suspect that Digium sees things this way. Maybe I'm too much of a free-thinker - too believing in the open-source philosophy, but I would like to think that this is not neccesarily true. I would like to think that they could host and support a non-disclaimed GPL Asterisk - having features that ABE does not - and they would profit from that. Still, they could ask for disclaimers, and undoubtedly many, many people here love Digium enough to do that even if they aren't required to do so in order to see their contribution integrated upstream. In the cases where a contributor will not disclaim the contribution to Digium then Digium could make some attempt to obtain a license for ABE from the contributor (and I expect that this case would be extremely rare - but perhaps appropriate for cases like spandsp/rxfax/txfax), Digium could write their own rendition of the contribution, or ABE could just do without it. The way I see it, if Asterisk improves or gets some new feature or increases its exposure then Digium (and every other business commercially involved with Asterisk) will benefit more from that than if the improvement had not taken place. Certainly I think that it's fair to say that some contributions will not be disclaimed in the scenario I outlined that would have been disclaimed in the present scenario. I think that depends on how well Digium does on keeping the Asterisk users loyal and willing to repay them in kind. However, in the end, even if they don't do a good job at that, I think that a better Asterisk means a happier Digium... even if that means that there is some differences between ABE and Asterisk GPL. Lee. ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Re: Asterisk Faxing Support
ha ok, I understand now 1) I don't think that Asterisk has any support for meter pulse detection on analogue cards. 2) If you already have an ISDN line, why do you not spend the eur 20 on a BRI card and do the job properly? The way you propose you are going from ISDN -- Analogue -- digital If you get a BRI card you do not have anything analogue in the way to add echo etc. You will be MUCH happier with the end result, I promise! http://www.solwise.co.uk/isdn.htm is what you need - take a look on ebay, and you then need to use a bristuffed version of Asterisk. Rgds Tim Patrick wrote: On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 13:55 +0100, Tomislav Parčina wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] says... Asterisk 1.2 has no support of t.38 whatsoever, the call will drop before t.38 is ever utilised, not even pass-thru. 1.4 Adds support for T.38 pass through only and no other sort of faxing, the endpoint must support T.38 and you must send your call to a T.38 gateway and you must not use NAT anywhere in your network and you must enable re-invites which could cause CDRs not to reflect the true details of the call. Asterisk/Digium also has no interest in any further interest in expanding T.38 or faxing support in Asterisk. Steve Underwood and the other fine persons that have helped to develop the software DSPs and other stuff required for FoIP support also have no interest in writing any further faxing support for Asterisk (RxFax, TxFax + the newest span_dsp wont even compile, much less work under Asterisk any more) probably because they know it will never be included into the Asterisk code. Someone please tell me this isn't truth. Afaik it is true that it will not be included in the Asterisk source because Steve will not disclaim the code to Digium (which he off course is entitled to). I compiled the latest spandsp (iirc 0.0.3pre27) on a FC6 box and it compiles fine. On Steve's website there are versions of app_rxfax and app_txfax for 1.4. Takes some messing around with the 1.4 build system to get them included but it worked for me last night. Those apps can be found here: http://www.soft-switch.org/downloads/snapshots/spandsp/test-apps-asterisk-1.4/ From reading this list it seems you are better off using iaxmodem and Hylafax (I guess that it assuming the fax comes in via TDM on the Asterisk box). Or check out OpenPBX.org as they have done much work on T.38 support (visit irc channel #openpbx on freenode.net to talk about the current status). Hope this helps. Regards, Patrick ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
