[Asterisk-Dev] voicemail message number limits

[dking at pimpsoft.com]

On 24 Jul 2004 at 17:42, Tilghman Lesher wrote:

> On Saturday 24 July 2004 17:12, dking at pimpsoft.com wrote:
> > Please don't flame me. It only makes yourself look immature; If I
> > was really the one at fault I would be beneath you and you would
> > not fame me, but you have and so it is clear I am not.
> 
> Uh huh.  You keep thinking that.  There's an error in logic that
> you've made here, but I'll save that for last.
> 
> > As to my suggestion I believed that the memory slots for the
> > messages did not populate until they where needed; I assumed that
> > basic memory management was not something that confounded the
> > people writing the code; Having ten or even a million possible
> > buckets does not mean that they are all filled with water and a
> > bi-directional linked list is really not that hard if you can code
> > something to control the phone system.
> 
> There are reasons we don't use linked lists for some things (speed
> is chief among them).

If done correctly the memory saved in there use far exceeds any slow 
down one may incur, and linked lists can be very fast for large 
amounts of data if designed well; Please explain why instead they are 
not used of depending on fallacies.

> > And just for the record, I have not and can not sign the crap NDA
> > for the source, or sign the required fax so It makes no sense that
> > I browse the code; It may not be a NDA per-se, but when you require
> > paperwork to join a open source project not even 1.0 stable yet
> > your requiring too much, and you can not honestly expect people to
> > trust it.
> 
> It's not an NDA (non-disclosure agreement).  In fact, there's nothing
> even close to a non-disclosure clause in any of the disclaimers.  One
> disclaimer grants a license for Digium to use your contributed code;
> the other disclaimer releases your work into a body of work that needs
> no license (public domain).  Please do not spit up three-letter
> acronyms without having an understanding of what they mean; once
> again, you've made yourself look stupid.

A NDA restricts use and knowledge attained; Since many people are 
unable to sign anything from digum due to limits in resources (like 
not having a fax) the barrier imposed does much the same thing; I was 
not stating that it was a NDA in the literal sense, I was stating 
that it was a NDA in the sense that it also provides a barrier to 
design and development and if you can not understand the point I was 
trying to make then anything I try to explain to you will simply go 
over your head; Who is the stupid one now?

Signing software into the public domain for them does nothing but 
allow them to add the source
in question not only to the GPL'ed source tree, but to another public 
domain (Or ever copyrighted by them) source tree they (digum) can 
steal from if they so choose and sell without having to follow the 
rules of the GPL at any time. The second form that grants them the 
right to use the source allows them to do this legally and in my mind 
that is the same thing as legal theft.

It may be legal but it is not right, and people should be allowed to 
contribute code to the open source project without allowing Digum the 
legal right to steal it as well.

I firmly believe that theft is wrong and I believe that having people 
sign away the rights to there own work on a open source project so 
that a company can capitalize on it without having to  follow the 
legally binding nature of the GPL is also wrong; Based on what you 
just said signing the forms gives them the legal right to violate the 
gpl without really doing so since it gives them the power to public 
domain your own work intended as gpl, then copy it into 2 source 
trees under different licenses, one they can use at will for whatever 
they want and one they have to follow the gpl in the use of.

Now I admit I am ignorant on this so I am going to go by what you 
just said; You said that they make the work public domain so the 
above fits perfectly. 


> Now as to your inability to sign a disclaimer, I can only conclude
> that you're under the legal age to sign a contract.  In this case, you
> are perfectly able to have your parent or guardian sign a disclaimer
> on your behalf and fax it to Digium.  In spite of your apparent
> disability to have a disclaimer signed and delivered, this fact by no
> means precludes you from looking at the source, or even altering it.
> The only thing that not having a signed disclaimer means is that any
> changes you make cannot be contributed back.

No I'm not under the legal age at all, I just do not have the 
resources to waste on a  fax to a company seeking to steal from the 
open source community, based on what you yourself said above.

And since I can not contribute in code and do not like the way things 
are handled with it, I see no reason why i should waste my time 
looking at the source code, since by doing so I would in turn most 
likely want to fix anything broken I found. Your also forgetting that 
i first came to this list seeking to help, thinking it was just a 
normal GPL project and not a marketing ploy by a company seeking to 
find a way to exploit the open source community and sell gobs of 
hardware; See my earlier posts on the SPARC problems and my offers to 
help fix the broken makefiles for more on that. 

I haver since self educated and found that not to be the case, and 
thanks to your efforts to prove me wrong in one thing I was proven 
correct in the other, main topic.

> > I was just trying to help; I may be wrong and in fact I know for a
> > fact that I am ignorant to many things regarding asterisk and its
> > design (And I have admitted this freely many times), but if you
> > really feel that you are so high and mighty and by thus feel that
> > disrespecting others by flaming them is a ok thing to do, you
> > should also be aware that someone so high and respectable would
> > never do such a thing.
> 
> Logic problem:  you're assuming that your supposition is correct and
> drawing a conclusion, despite having cited no evidence to support that
> supposition.  I have a third possibility for you:  your supposition is
> wrong, I've made significant contributions to the Asterisk code base,
> and I _have_ just flamed you.  Again.

And yet I still am mature enough to not care. Your clearly smart for 
your age but only a child responds as you have so I have to wonder,  
was it your father or your mother that signed your release to digum 
to be raped for your efforts in the code? You said it yourself, you 
sign everything into public domain when you sign the disclaimers that 
let you submit code, so prove to me and the entire open source 
community, nay the entire world, that digum is not abusing that  and 
are not cycling the code and adding it to other source trees before 
gpling it?
> -- 
> Tilghman
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>