[Asterisk-Dev] UK Caller ID patch and new CVS

[dking at pimpsoft.com]

Maybe I am hearing it wrong, but it is my understanding that the code 
used to fix the problem as well as the needed hardware driver for the 
FXO card will not be included in the cvs, and the people at digum are 
just sitting on it.

Is that correct?

On 22 Jul 2004 at 12:42, Gilmore, Gerry wrote:

> So which source is not available?
> 
> -- There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand
> binary and those who don't.
>  
> Gerry Gilmore
> Field Applications Engineer
> Communications Sales Organization
> Intel Corporation
> http://www.intel.com
>  
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asterisk-dev-admin at lists.digium.com
> [mailto:asterisk-dev-admin at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of
> dking at pimpsoft.com
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 2:21 PM
> To: asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Dev] UK Caller ID patch and new CVS
> 
> 
> The true nature of open source is defined as the source being available
> and open. Limiting the included code for the central offering based on
> someone's will because he thinks it will mean he can sell more hardware
> if he does not do so is not open source, its dictatorship. I find it
> very sad that based on my understanding asterisk will not include code
> that will help many people just because one person feels that to do so
> would hurt his companies profit margins, when the code is no doubt
> already available 
> somewhere else or is needed by someone.
> 
> In the time I have watched this list even before I started posting I
> have seen much of this; Keep up the dictatorship of the central code
> repository and I guarantee you a branch of the source code will form
> within the next 3-6 months. Not by me since I do not have the requisite
> understanding, but I believe it important to say here that if the open
> source community does not like the way digium or 'Mark' is doing things
> it will simply make them unnecessary for the project to go forward by
> cutting them out of the 
> loop. And that perfectly acceptable from a legal standpoint since
> asterisk is after all GPL.
> 
> I don't mean to be cruel or annoying, I'm stating facts as I see them.
> If I am wrong or ignorant by all means tell me, but if it looks like
> this to me, how do you think it looks to the thousands of other people
> ghosting around this project and watching in the shadows as I once did?
> 
> Just a though.
> 
> On 22 Jul 2004 at 14:43, Chris Stenton wrote:
> 
> > Mark does not like the history buffer method  used. I think code will
> be
> > included for the the fxo module at some point but not for the X100P.
> > 
> > Chris.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Dev mailing list
> Asterisk-Dev at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Dev mailing list
> Asterisk-Dev at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
>