[asterisk-dev] Zaptel project being renamed to DAHDI

[Russell Bryant]

Oron Peled wrote:
> While zaptel is GPL'ed, in practical terms most of its development
> is done by a small group of people. Therefore, Digium maintain *some*
> (informal) level of control (interface changes etc.) which they are
> afraid to loose.
> 
> For the record, I personally don't buy the argument that pushing it
> into the kernel would cause this group to immediately loose this type
> of control. At least initially, it would be the same people and same
> companies that would develop it.

Let me quote what Kevin said again.

"Actually, that's not the primary reason that Zaptel has not been pushed
for including in the kernel tree. The reason is that we still want
dual-license control over the code in Zaptel/DAHDI, and we can't easily
maintain that control if the code is managed in a tree we don't own."

The control he is talking about there is the ability to dual license code that 
is included in <s>zaptel</s>DAHDI, in the same way that we do with Asterisk. 
The issue is not with control over interface changes and other code issues.  It 
is about licensing.  At this point, Digium has made a business decision that 
maintaining control from a licensing point of view is worth it.  Until that 
changes, talking about any of the other issues related to the process of getting 
it into the kernel is pointless.

-- 
Russell Bryant
Senior Software Engineer
Open Source Team Lead
Digium, Inc.