[Asterisk-Users] Help with GPL license of Asterisk

Tue Sep 30 07:17:06 MST 2003

I understand Asterisk have contributions of many
developers and not only from Digium.

When licensing Asterisk from Digium looking other kind
of licence than GPL, what happens with the rights of
other members of this community?

Alejandro

 --- Uriel Carrasquilla <uriel at adelphia.net> escreveu:
> 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
> 
=== message truncated === 

Yahoo! Mail - o melhor webmail do Brasil
http://mail.yahoo.com.br