[Asterisk-Users] Broadvoice asterisk patch

[Adam Goryachev]

On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 13:35, Tom Lahti wrote:
> At 02:39 PM 11/10/2004, you wrote:
> > >In any case, the patch has been positively identified as being genuine.
> >
> >Which one? Anyone who got an email like that?
> >
> >Get the point? :)
> 
> Since (a) asterisk is not Broadvoice's product, (b) Broadvoice does not 
> even officially support asterisk, and (c) asterisk is an open source 
> project, the *only* appropriate action they can take is to email a patch.

I don't agree, it was *ONE* possible action they could have taken.

Here are some others:
a) Log a bug on bugs.digium.com with/without the patch, if they
submitted a patch, also submit a disclaimer, wait for it to be added to
CVS, then ask people to either upgrade, or apply the patch found in bug
#xxxx

b) Post the message + patch on their website, send a request for
asterisk users to apply the patch along with some other official notice
(ie, invoice/etc)

I'm sure there are other possibilities, but I'm sure you understand by
now!

> They are a business trying to earn a living on their own products and they 
> did what they did to alleviate their OWN problem and save their OWN 
> network, the rest of it be damned, which is totally appropriate for any 
> for-profit business.

As such, they should have solved their OWN problem in a responsible way.
Of course, if there is *some* question of whether a patch is legitimate,
then it won't be applied, in which case their OWN problem hasn't been
solved. They need the recipient to do some work, therefore they need to
provide the most pain-free method (easiest) for the recipient.

> They could just as easily have said "screw you asterisk people" and 
> disabled asterisk's ability to register with their servers and not done 
> anything about asterisk's lack of ability in the registration area.

True, in which case "asterisk people" would probably have written the
patch, added it to CVS, and the interested parties would have updated
(or just applied the patch to their old version).

> Now, thanks to their effort, we have an improved asterisk with greater 
> ability and compatibility.  Since noone else has said it, I'll say "Thanks, 
> Broadvoice.  We're glad to have you contribute to the asterisk codebase, 
> and good work!"

Did they contribute to the codebase, or did they just write/release a
patch without contributing to the asterisk codebase? ie, have they
submitted the patch to the bug tracker *AND* signed the disclaimer.

Regards,
Adam