[Asterisk-Users] Help with GPL license of Asterisk

[Uriel Carrasquilla]

If I may, I'd like to make a few points that I hope can help find an answer
to what we seem to be looking for:  THe equitable distribution of financial
gains due to efforts brought to the table by Digium, efforts to contributors
to Asterisk and the efforts of independent operators.

Analogy:
In the world of IBM Mainframes, IBM always provided well documented exit
points for their applications so 3rd party could develop solutions
independent of their licenses.
For example, wouldn't it be nice if Asterisk called dummy modules during
call set up, CDR writing, call hang-up etc, passing some pointers to control
blocks containing information about caller-id, ANI, DNIS, etc?
Then, we could write our independent programs (under the name of those dummy
modules with dynamic links) that would enhance the functionality of
ASterisk.  THus increasing the chances of success for Asterisk over the long
run and helping everybody in this boat.

I do strongly believe that Digium (and Mark) needs to be compensated for
their efforts.  So far it is in the form of hardware and consulting sales
which personally I don't think it is enough compensation.  In the case of
IBM, when third party software was sold, then IBM software would be require
and IBM made money this way.  The challenge with Asterisk is that a Linux
box with Asterisk in it can be sold (including and disclosing as per the GPL
license) and Digium does not make money on the transaction unless Digium
hardware is included (which is not enough for the value Asterisk brings to
the deal).
I think we all want to see Asterisk succeed. I am sure we have all invested
long hours in learning how to use it, marketing and making it "prime time"
ready with the little documentation and training available.  We, I believe,
as a community also want to see Digium to be properly compensated, after
all, they are the hart of this entire community.  THe difficulty is finding
a method that works for everybody and is not risky from the legal point of
view.  The law can protect us but can also cause harm when not intended.
Unfortunately, I don't have an answer, I am not a lawyer but I do know that
if the time I spent with ASterisk and the compensation I got for it, I am
working for a penny a day.  However, I do it because I love it and I suspect
that is the case with a lot of the members.

Uriel

-----Original Message-----
From: asterisk-users-admin at lists.digium.com
[mailto:asterisk-users-admin at lists.digium.com]On Behalf Of Armand A.
Verstappen
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 4:38 PM
To: asterisk-users at lists.digium.com
Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Help with GPL license of Asterisk


Hi,

On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 16:40, Mark Spencer wrote:
> > 1) if your application is not released to a 3rd party, you do not have
> > to make the source available
>
> This is TRUE.
>
> > 2) if you build your application as a module that loads into a stock
> > asterisk server, you do not have to disclose your source
>
> This is FALSE.  Even modules for Asterisk MUST be released under GPL,
> unless you obtain a license to release them outside of GPL from Digium.

Maybe this should be re-thought? Allowing third parties to release
modules under a non-GPL license (through a 'Mark exception' analogue to
the 'Linus exception referenced below) could be intresting.
A third party that really wants to release under a non-GPL license can
do so by creating their application as an AGI script, or have it work
using the management interface. Heck, they could release a wrapper to
'exec()' as GPL, and then use that application to call their non-gpl'ed
code anyway, right?
So, if 3rd parties are doing or going to do that, then why not allow
them to do it in a way that doesn't require bypassing proper design?
A third party could then for example start selling G.723 codecs, if they
are prepared to pay the fee that allows them to do so.

> > 3) if you need to make changes to the core in order for your application
> > to work, you'll need to disclose source for your changes to the core,
> > but not for your application.  This sounds horrid, but it's not too bad,
> > as your simply augmenting the core API and keeping your goodies in the
> > binary only portion of the release.
>
> This is also FALSE.  You MUST release both the module AND core changes
> unless you obtain license from Digium.  I believe you are confusing the
> "Linus exception" which is an exception for the Linux kernel explicitly
> made by Linus Torvalds, allowing binary only modules to the kernel only.

My suggestion above is based on my own egoistic view as a user of the
software. I have no intention to create non-GPLed modules myself, but
wouldn't mind to pay for some kind of third party module that does
something for me thats not available in GPLed code. I prefer GPL, other
forms of open source (payed for or not) is acceptable. I dislike closed
source, but if it solves my problem against an acceptable rate with
acceptable service and support, why not.

With a 'mark exception', I'd be able to run GLP-ed asterisk with a
channel driver from a third party. Win for me. Without the 'mark
exception', I'll have to purchase a non-GPLed version of Asterisk, as
well as the third parties' module. I'm not clear if that will lock me
into paying upgrade fees to Digium, or if a non-GPL license will still
allows me to follow CVS as I do now. I'll have the same question
regarding the third party's module in the other case of course.

I'm not sure how a 'mark/digium exception' would work out for the the
Asterisk community. A third party would no longer be required to pay a
fee for a non-GPLed Asterisk, and Digium would loose some revenue. Since
Digium still is the primary sponsor of Asterisk development, this is a
loss for the community. On the other hand, it is possible that under the
suggested construction many more third party modules spring to live,
causing Asterisk to be more usable for businesses, in turn generating
more revenue for Digium. And, since third parties would benefit from a
more stable Asterisk, there may be more parties be actively involved in
maintaining and extending the core. I have no idea which way the balance
would swing.

wkr,

--
Envida                     http://www.envida.net/
Armand A. Verstappen       Graadt van Roggenweg 328
armand at nl.envida.net       3531 AH Utrecht
tel: +31 (0)30 298 2255    Postbus 19127
fax: +31 (0)30 298 2111    3501 DC Utrecht