Kevin Walsh wrote:
Brian West [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or better yet.. modify the disclaimer like I and a few others did to
say that the only thing you will disclaim are things you post on the
bug tracker! NO UPDATES, NO CHANGES, NO NOTHING! If its not posted
under your user on mantis IT IS
Eric Wieling aka ManxPower [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin Walsh wrote:
Brian West [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or better yet.. modify the disclaimer like I and a few others did to
say that the only thing you will disclaim are things you post on the
bug tracker! NO UPDATES, NO CHANGES, NO
Kevin Walsh wrote:
Most people probably are not aware that that's an option. I certainly
wasn't aware of it. If the owner accepts custom agreements, rather
than just one of the two published versions, then that's a good start.
Negotiation is always an option; we frequently get disclaimers
Brian West [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or better yet.. modify the disclaimer like I and a few others did to
say that the only thing you will disclaim are things you post on the
bug tracker! NO UPDATES, NO CHANGES, NO NOTHING! If its not posted
under your user on mantis IT IS NOT DISCLAIMED!
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 10:56:42AM -0500, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
Kevin Walsh wrote:
The perpetual agreement grants the owner a non-cancellable right
to use changes and/or enhancements made to the Asterisk codebase as
[the] owner sees fit. As any Asterisk fork would, of course, be based
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 18:18 +0100, Kevin Walsh wrote:
Adam Goryachev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 04:15 +0100, Kevin Walsh wrote:
For this reason, I believe that if a fork were
ever necessary, it would struggle to beat a distinct path away from
the Asterisk Binary
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 12:00 +0300, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
Disclaimers aside, who has the copyrights in those cases?
Do you actually read the emails on this list? or just like to jump right
in and help the brawl continue? The disclaimers don't affect copyright,
the author of the work/patch/source
Tzafrir Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Disclaimers aside, who has the copyrights in those cases?
Digium currently holds copyrights and/or is allowed to relicense the
full asterisk codebase as is currently distributed in the asterisk
tarballs on ftp.asterisk.org and also all the code in the
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 12:43:06AM +1000, Adam Goryachev wrote:
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 12:00 +0300, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
Disclaimers aside, who has the copyrights in those cases?
Do you actually read the emails on this list? or just like to jump right
in and help the brawl continue? The
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 18:18 +0100, Kevin Walsh wrote:
Adam Goryachev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 04:15 +0100, Kevin Walsh wrote:
For this reason, I believe that if a fork were
ever necessary, it would struggle to beat a distinct path away from
the Asterisk
On 23-Jul-05, at 11:22 AM, Kevin Walsh wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 18:18 +0100, Kevin Walsh wrote:
Adam Goryachev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 04:15 +0100, Kevin Walsh wrote:
For this reason, I believe that if a fork were
ever necessary, it would struggle to beat a
Or better yet.. modify the disclaimer like I and a few others did to
say that the only thing you will disclaim are things you post on the
bug tracker! NO UPDATES, NO CHANGES, NO NOTHING! If its not posted
under your user on mantis IT IS NOT DISCLAIMED!
/b
On Jul 23, 2005, at 2:59 PM,
Kevin Walsh wrote:
The perpetual agreement grants the owner a non-cancellable right
to use changes and/or enhancements made to the Asterisk codebase as
[the] owner sees fit. As any Asterisk fork would, of course, be based
upon existing Asterisk code, the owner would have the automatic right
to
Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
Kevin Walsh wrote:
The perpetual agreement grants the owner a non-cancellable right
to use changes and/or enhancements made to the Asterisk codebase as
[the] owner sees fit. As any Asterisk fork would, of course, be based
upon existing Asterisk code, the owner would
Kevin P. Fleming [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin Walsh wrote:
The perpetual agreement grants the owner a non-cancellable right
to use changes and/or enhancements made to the Asterisk codebase as
[the] owner sees fit. As any Asterisk fork would, of course, be based
upon existing Asterisk
Adam Goryachev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 04:15 +0100, Kevin Walsh wrote:
It has been flippantly said, a number of times, that if you don't
like the situation then you can fork the project. A major fork seems
(to me) to be pointless for one main reason (and a couple of
On 2005-07-22 11:49:50 -0400, Kevin P. Fleming [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
So what are they planning on doing with the Google Summer of Code results?
http://code.google.com/summfaq.html#what_licenses_will_i_have
What licenses will I have to choose from?
This depends
Brian Capouch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin Walsh and Aidan are able to see things that the rest of us cannot.
Digium has duped you into associating with their evil enterprise to
appropriate everyone else's hard work.
I'm sure the stuff you and Mark have contributed pales in comparison
Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
2. Contributer shall report to Owner all changes and/or enhancements to
the Program which are covered by this Agreement, and (to the extent known
to Contributer) any outstanding rights, or claims of rights, of any
person, that might be adverse to the rights of
Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
Well, you read one of the FAQs. The FAQ for mentoring organizations
says (as I quoted in my first message)
http://code.google.com/mentfaq.html#what_license_may_the_prog
What license may the programs be developed under?
Any that the mentoring organization chooses that
Steve Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
2. Contributer shall report to Owner all changes and/or enhancements to
the Program which are covered by this Agreement, and (to the extent
known to Contributer) any outstanding rights, or claims of rights, of
any person,
-Original Message-
From: Lee Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
Any consultant, business, or person that intends to reliably sustain
...
As for the dual-license issue
Jay Milk wrote:
Who is getting the better end of the deal?
Well, Digium, of course. I certainly hope that they've made way more
money from Asterisk than I ever expect to save or make. And I certainly
expect that Digium has made way more money from Asterisk because they've
open-sourced
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 10:19 -0700, Lee Howard wrote:
What I am saying, though, is that Digium didn't give out royalty-free
proprietary licenses to Asterisk, instead, they gave out GPL licenses to
Asterisk. Why, then, do they require that contributions are made any
differently? Why do they
What I am saying, though, is that Digium didn't give out royalty-free
proprietary licenses to Asterisk, instead, they gave out GPL licenses
to Asterisk. Why, then, do they require that contributions are made
any differently? Why do they require freedoms with contribution that
they did not
trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote:
You do not give up your copyright on your contributed code. You do not
have to give them full rights to your code if you do not wish to. You
have an option to contribute GPL only code.
The first two statements are true; the third is not.
While you
Let me see if I can get my point across:
-Original Message-
From: Lee Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition
Jay Milk wrote:
Who is getting the better end of the deal?
Well, Digium
Lee Howard wrote:
Go ahead and have a proprietary fork, sell it, have it specially
licensed. But please, please, please treat the community fairly.
Otherwise it causes unrest in the community, discourages contribution,
encourages forking, and triggers forum threads like this one.
You seem
here, here!
Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
Lee Howard wrote:
Go ahead and have a proprietary fork, sell it, have it specially
licensed. But please, please, please treat the community fairly.
Otherwise it causes unrest in the community, discourages
contribution, encourages forking, and triggers
Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
You seem to be neglecting the amount of work that Digium puts into the
Asterisk (and related) products on an ongoing basis that is given to
the community at no charge.
So at least we agree, then, on what the reasoning is. Digium feels that
the community owes it to
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 18:32 -0700, Lee Howard wrote:
Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
You seem to be neglecting the amount of work that Digium puts into the
Asterisk (and related) products on an ongoing basis that is given to
the community at no charge.
So at least we agree, then, on what the
Lee Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
You seem to be neglecting the amount of work that Digium puts into the
Asterisk (and related) products on an ongoing basis that is given to
the community at no charge.
So at least we agree, then, on what the reasoning is.
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 04:15 +0100, Kevin Walsh wrote:
It has been flippantly said, a number of times, that if you don't
like the situation then you can fork the project. A major fork seems
(to me) to be pointless for one main reason (and a couple of lesser
reasons):
As I see it, anyone
Kevin Walsh wrote:
One piece of good news can be found here:
http://www.asterisk.org/index.php?menu=summer_of_code
The requirements say nothing about being asked to sign a disclaimer,
so perhaps either Google have views on this sort of practice, or people
will be quietly rejected,
Any consultant, business, or person that intends to reliably sustain
support and maintainance contracts of software for commercial purposes
must have some acceptable level of control over that software. It used
to be that Digium controlled all of the commits to the CVS repository.
I don't
35 matches
Mail list logo
