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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
25 matches
Mail list logo
