[asterisk-biz] Ribbit.com ?

[Trixter aka Bret McDanel]

On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 12:30 -0500, Jim Capp wrote:
> Steve,
> 
>     I'm confused.  Isn't the code that was developed related to the JIAX 
> already GPL and therefore should be returned to the community anyway?
> 
> Jim


The GPL *only* covers distributed works.  If the company that paid for
the work did not distribute it they dont have to give it out.  Further
if they distribute it, and it is GPL they would only have to give the
code to the people they distribute it for.

You could do the same with the GPL version of asterisk (not to be
confused with the closed source commercial version digium sells).  You
could sell it for whatever you want and someone is willing to pay.  You
would only have to give your changes (if any) to the people that you
sold it to.  

Just because its GPL does not in any way mean the community will ever
benefit from people modifying it, all the GPL does is place restrictions
on developers in how they can and cannot use the code.  
This is a common misconception about the 'freedom' that the GPL
provides, mostly because 'freedom' is defined as 'restrictions'.

Further the GPL only covers *copyrightable* work, it does not include
anything covered by trademark law or patent law.  While it was not
implicitly stated prior to GPL3, it would be possible to GPL patented
work meaning that no one could use it outside of research and
development (generally) without paying a license fee.  

GPL3 states that if you contribute code then patents must be licensed to
all (there are legal circles currently discussing the verbage, gpl3 is
banned at some companies because its vague, it could mean that if you
have any gpl3 product you entire patent portfolio is fair game for
anyone else to plunder even if the patents had nothing to do with gpl3
software - linus had some bad things to say about the gpl3, richard
stalin retorted saying that you should never use linux ever - google for
cites there are many).  

This is similar to the discussions that resulted in the banning of gpl1
software - such as GCC because it was vague if you compiled a program
that the output of gcc, namely the binary makes it gpled.  GPL2 was
formed to clarify that (per stalin's comments at the time).  I know that
I worked with a company long long ago whose extensive legal department
came to the conclusion that no gpl software could be used due to the
ambiguities in the gpl1, they changed their minds when the gpl2 came
out, but by then it was too late (back then GCC and suns commercial
stuff were not anywhere near as compatible as they are now).


-- 
Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com     Bret McDanel
Belfast +44 28 9099 6461        US +1 516 687 5200
http://www.trxtel.com the phone company that pays you!