[asterisk-dev] Zaptel project being renamed to DAHDI

[Steve Totaro]

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Russell Bryant <russell at digium.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

"Until" or "Unless", your words give away your opinion, or am I wrong? ;-)

Thanks,
Steve Totaro