Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: New JAVA application server for Asterisk - OrderlyCalls
On Jun 21, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Adam Megacz wrote: Matt King [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am familiar with the OSI definitiion. I've read it again, but I can't work out exactly how asking for permission contravenes this definition. 2) OrderlyCalls MAY NOT be used to provide or augment call queuing without the prior written permission of Orderly Software. 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business... http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Maybe I'm wrong here, but his restriction does not seem to be a restriction on a field of endeavor. His restriction is a restriction on using the software to implement a certain function. If he had said You may not use this software for commercial purposes or Individuals engaged in agricultural activities may not use this software, or This software cannot be used by commercial software vendors, THEN it would be a restriction based on a specific field of endeavor. Tom ___ 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: New JAVA application server for Asterisk - OrderlyCalls
On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 09:36 -0400, Tom Rymes wrote: On Jun 21, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Adam Megacz wrote: Matt King [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am familiar with the OSI definitiion. I've read it again, but I can't work out exactly how asking for permission contravenes this definition. 2) OrderlyCalls MAY NOT be used to provide or augment call queuing without the prior written permission of Orderly Software. Maybe I'm wrong here, but his restriction does not seem to be a restriction on a field of endeavor. His restriction is a restriction on using the software to implement a certain function. If he had said You may not use this software for commercial purposes or Individuals engaged in agricultural activities may not use this software, or This software cannot be used by commercial software vendors, THEN it would be a restriction based on a specific field of endeavor. So what is different between these two: Individuals engaged in agricultural activities may not use this software AND Individuals or companies engaged in tele-marketing/cold calling activities may not use this software IMHO, that kind of exclusion does not allow this application to be called 'free' since it restricts your freedom to use it however you want... While I might agree with the philosophy, I don't agree with the restriction being placed. Also, I really don't agree with the other restriction saying that you can't use this software in order to derive some other function (eg, the equivalent of their other queue product). That definitely reeks of non-free Again, that might be their specific business model, but I don't think the 'free' software community will be bothered with their applications if they are so encumbered. Either they will be re-written (re-invented if you like) or else they really aren't important to anyone anyway Just my 0.02c worth PS, why would you need to host it on sourceforge anyway, why not just stick it on your own website ?? Regards, Adam Regards, Adam -- -- Adam Goryachev Website Managers Ph: +61 2 9345 4395[EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +61 2 9345 4396www.websitemanagers.com.au ___ 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: New JAVA application server for Asterisk - OrderlyCalls
Matt King wrote: The reason for this is that Orderly Software provides an advanced queue management system called OrderlyQ, that lets callers hang up and call back when they reach the front of the queue. OrderlyQ is patent-pending, and we do NOT allow the use of OrderlyCalls to provide similar functionality. I'm quite curious about how this could be patented, since it's already happened to me quite a few times to run into queuing systems that call me back when I reach the front of the queue. Wouldn't that qualify as prior art? (I'd have many more grounds to dislike the notion that it could be patentable, but the prior art one is one where my viewpoint and the law's might agree!) -- Emanuele ___ 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
[Asterisk-Users] Re: New JAVA application server for Asterisk - OrderlyCalls
Hello Adam, Thank you so much for taking the time to write to me. I can understand your concerns; let me see if I can address them. Matt, Sourceforge.net is exclusively for hosting software whose licensing terms meet the OSI's definition of Open Source: http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php Your licensing terms include the following, which is not compliant with the OSI definition: Usage Restrictions In addition to the restrictions of the LGPL, the following restrictions apply: ... OrderlyCalls may not be used to provide or augment call queuing without the prior written permission of Orderly Software. I am familiar with the OSI definitiion. I've read it again, but I can't work out exactly how asking for permission contravenes this definition. Perhaps you could clarify with a more specific reference? Here's the relevant section from the OrderlyCalls licence file (available at http://orderlycalls.sourceforge.net ): --- In addition to the restrictions of the LGPL, the following restrictions apply: 1) OrderlyCalls MAY NOT be used to automate 'cold-calling'. Orderly Software takes a strong stand against SPAM. If you wish to use OrderlyCalls to call people without their prior consent, you MUST write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] explaining why you need to do this. At our discretion we MAY decide to issue permission in specific cases. 2) OrderlyCalls MAY NOT be used to provide or augment call queuing without the prior written permission of Orderly Software. The reason for this is that Orderly Software provides an advanced queue management system called OrderlyQ, that lets callers hang up and call back when they reach the front of the queue. OrderlyQ is patent-pending, and we do NOT allow the use of OrderlyCalls to provide similar functionality. By adding this restriction, we are erring on the side of caution, so if you want to use OrderlyCalls in conjunction with call queuing, but you are not intending to emulate OrderlyQ, you MUST write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and explain how you intend to use OrderlyCalls. We anticipate that we will be very happy to give consent in most cases. --- So my first question is, are you objecting to the first usage restriction regarding SPAM calls? We feel this restriction is very important as we sincerely do not wish OrderlyCalls to become a nuisance to anyone. Or are you objecting to the second restriction only? The purpose of the second restriction is to ensure that OrderlyCalls is not used to infringe the intellectual property embodied in OrderlyQ, even by accident, with a view to avoiding litigation and other troubles *before* they can happen. OrderlyQ is a very specific application, and we would only consider witholding permission in cases of clear conflict. We do not wish to restrict the use of OrderlyCalls beyond these boundaries, and by asking people to seek permission before they make the investment of coding, we can co-operatively ensure and verify that their plans do not involve such a conflict. This is to the developer's advantage, as once we've issued permission, the developer can ensure that he/she is not exposed to litigation risk from us. We feel that specifically eliminating this 'grey area' as early as possible in the development process is therefore to everyone's benefit, hence the restriction. I really don't expect we'll be witholding permission very often, if ever. While I understand your motivation and empathize with the plight of open-source business, unfortunately you must either: a) remove this restriction - or - b) remove your project from sourceforge.net Please take action soon so that this matter does not need to be escalated to the sourceforge.net admins. I'm more than happy to refer to sourceforge.net for guidance on this matter, and will do so myself if necessary, however I know they're very busy people, and I'd hate to bother them inappropriately. I also need more information on the specifics of your objection before I can take action. Might I suggest therefore that for the moment we continue this discussion in a spirit of open and friendly co-operation, with a view to finding a solution together, and thereby avoid adding to their workload? I'd also like to suggest that we move this discussion to the OrderlyCalls mailing list, [EMAIL PROTECTED], as I feel this is a more appropriate place for the discussion, and I don't want to burden the inboxes of the subscribers to Asterisk lists inappropriately. You might also choose to respond privately with your concerns; in any case I'd be happy to post the resolution of this issue more widely once we've worked out together exactly what that will be. For the meanwhile, if you're concerned about this issue, and considering using OrderlyCalls with call queues, please don't be scared, and do just ask! Many thanks, Matt King, M.A. Oxon. Managing Director, Orderly
[Asterisk-Users] Re: New JAVA application server for Asterisk - OrderlyCalls
Matt King [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am familiar with the OSI definitiion. I've read it again, but I can't work out exactly how asking for permission contravenes this definition. 2) OrderlyCalls MAY NOT be used to provide or augment call queuing without the prior written permission of Orderly Software. 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business... http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php - 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
[Asterisk-Users] Re: New JAVA application server for Asterisk - OrderlyCalls
Hello Adam, Matt King [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am familiar with the OSI definitiion. I've read it again, but I can't work out exactly how asking for permission contravenes this definition. Then Adam wrote: 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business... http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php - a Well the full text of section 6 reads as follows: 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it. I believe that 'field of endeavour' means quite a broad spectrum of activity, such as 'business' or 'genetic research'. It's certainly *not* our intent to discriminate in this way, and I don't think the very specific usage requirements in the licence file could be taken to mean that we're discriminating against any particular field of endeavour. We're certainly *not* intending to prohibit commercial use of OrderlyCalls - indeed we have chosen the LGPL specifically to *encourage* commercial use. We are open to suggestion on this issue, so if you've got a way forward I'd love to hear about it, but in the meantime I'd like to repeat my request to move this discussion off the Asterisk lists and onto a more appropriate forum (such as [EMAIL PROTECTED]), as I feel like we're bugging the readers here with unnecessary detail. This will therefore be my last post to the Asterisk lists on this issue until a way forward has been agreed. Respectfully yours, Matt King, M.A. Oxon. Managing Director, Orderly Software Ltd. ___ 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: New JAVA application server for Asterisk - OrderlyCalls
On Tuesday 21 June 2005 18:16, Matt King wrote: We are open to suggestion on this issue, so if you've got a way forward I'd love to hear about it, but in the meantime I'd like to repeat my request to How about not crossposting this? It really does not belong in -dev. (Nor really -users, but I had to suggest one of 'em. :-) -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
