[asterisk-biz] Response to KP Flemming...

[trixter aka Bret McDanel]

On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 10:12 -0500, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> ----- trixter aka Bret McDanel <trixter at 0xdecafbad.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 09:12 -0500, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> > > ----- trixter aka Bret McDanel <trixter at 0xdecafbad.com> wrote:
> > > > Since the code does appear to be very much identical to code that
> > was
> > > > denied to exist in the first place, but links were posted that
> > makes
> > > > it
> > > > appear identical in many ways.  Kinda makes one wonder what the
> > real
> > > > story is.
> > > 
> > > Nobody denied that this code existed.
> > > 
> > I never said that anyone denied the code existed, stop rearranging
> > what
> > was said to suit your needs.  Please read what is actually said
> > instead
> > of living in fantasy land.  It would make everything so much easier.
> 
> Your own quote, five lines above mine, unless I am mistaken, clearly states that you believe the code is nearly identical to something that Digium denied the existence of until proven otherwise.
> 

Yes and I qualified that specifically talking about g.723, and the whole
issue that followed was over the module that was released and my
admission that I did not recall the word 'binary' that you used as a
qualifier in your post originally denying that digium released such a
module.  

I had thought that these emails would have been read in context and that
they would not be picked apart, and that it was assumed that they are
not single entities but part of a dialog.  I will try to avoid making
those mistakes when communicating to digium folk in the future.


> > Kinda makes one wonder what the real story is when there is so much
> > hostility over such a little issue.
> 
> Where do you see hostility? We posted a very simple, direct and straightforward response denying that the code that was posted was the code that we use to build G.729 binary codec modules, and that in the interests of not being sued over potential copyright or licensing violations, we were removing the links to it from our mailing list archives. There was no hostility involved on our part whatsoever.

Your responses seemed a bit hostile, as they have in the past, whenever
something comes up that digium wants squashed.  Like last year I asked
'is there a list of what I have to do to make asteirsk gpl compliant'.
That was right before the FSF called you up (or at least that is what
they told me becuase they wanted to urge digium to change some of its
policies) regarding the GPL issues (the same people that told me that
some of the digium policies regarding the GPL were invalid).

Now the FSF cant force people to only use the GPL accurately, and they
made this clear to me, and since code is disclaimed it becomes hard
(read impossible) to say digium violated the GPL (something I did not
say then nor am I saying now, however you accused me of saying it last
year when I asked what *I* had to do).

I think perhaps some of the hostility that occured then is some of the
same hostility that is coming out now, but meh.  



> Digium did not ask to get links removed from any other sites, to my knowledge, and if any Digium employee did so, it was done without consulting with management or our legal team. If that occurred, I would appreciate being notified of it off-list so that it can be dealt with appropriately.
> 

Ahh, makes me wonder what the real story was behind these comments from
you personally:

----- James Jones <james.jones at signate.com> wrote:
> Why did Digium request that article from digg be removed if it was 
> linking to you list archive which has been corrected already?

That was done before we had a complete plan in place to deal with this,
and the mailing list archives had not yet been modified.


I guess I just inferred that digium had infact asked them to be removed.
My bad.

> Since the vast majority of the code that was posted did not claim to come from Digium, and was clearly from a third party that everyone is aware of (and who does not provide any license agreement that allows redistribution of that source code), it is very clear to nearly everyone involved that posting that code was in violation of at least one party's copyright.
> 
It would have to be in violation of a license not a copyright.  Without
knowing the license involved, I cannot say whether this was 'very clear'
or not.
-- 
Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com     Bret McDanel
Belfast IE +44 28 9099 6461    DE +49 801 777 555 3402
Utrecht NL +31 306 553058      US WA +1 360 207 0479
US NY +1 516 687 5200          FreeWorldDialup: 635378
http://www.trxtel.com the VoIP provider that pays you!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-biz/attachments/20060907/91825c3e/attachment.pgp