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
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
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
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
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).
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:
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
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
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
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
: 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
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
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 --
13 matches
Mail list logo
