[Asterisk-Users] SysMaster and GPL Violation

[Joe Greco]

> On Fri, 2004-11-12 at 09:26 -0600, Joe Greco wrote:
> > > I too demand sysmaster either pay Digium for a non-gpl license or 
> > 
> > Now, here, this gets to the heart of a problem I've hinted at before.
> > 
> > Digium is making people sign a draconian agreement that gives up rights
> > to patches and features that are integrated into Asterisk, by signing
> > rights over to Digium.
> > 
> > I would expect that most contributors do not realize that they are setting
> > up a scenario where Digium can, in fact, sell non-GPL Asterisk licenses to 
> > third parties and essentially sell their work.
> 
> I think we all knew that. In fact, we consider it a good thing as it
> allows Digium an income to keep paid developers working on the code
> base.

Really?  Wouldn't it be nice, then, if Digium explicitly stated that this
was their intention, in their little agreements?

Most people who work on a GNU software project have a marginal understanding
of the legalities, and it is reasonable to believe that there will at least
be some percentage of contributors to whom this comes as a complete shock.

Further, that really does seem to fly in the face of the spirit of the GPL,
and this is touched on by the GPL FAQ:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCReleaseUnderGPLAndNF

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDeveloperViolate

That'd be the FSF calling this both "ethically tainted" and showing a loss
of "moral standing".  I'd be happy to put it to them to see if there is a
more specific opinion covering the case where a copyright holder actually 
forces contributors to sign away their rights.

> > For all of the people who wanted to tell us about how horrible the BSD
> > license is, please explain how this state of affairs is any better.
> 
> (My memory is spotty and I am not invoking the thread) 
> This is like a benevolent dictator, in as much as the only person
> allowed to make a proprietary version is Mark/Digium. That is how it is
> better. I choose as an option to allow Digium that special right as a
> sode effect of merging and maintaining the patch I needed in asterisk.  

Actually, no, Mark/Digium is not the only one allowed to make a propietary
version.  Licensing doesn't work that way.  Mark/Digium can assign a license
to do whatever to whoever, for whatever reason (with legal caveats that can
not be summed up in a box of paper, much less 82 characters).

> > > publicly admit the fact that they have repackaged Asterisk and 
> > > contribute enhancements to Asterisk back to the GPL.
> > 
> > They are not required to contribute changes back.  They are merely
> > required to disclose the source code for the Asterisk portion of their
> > product.
> 
> Incorrect. They must disclose any asterisk modifications as it is the
> running asterisk code at least to the customer.

Incorrect again.  Go read the GPL.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

They are required to /make it available/, but they are not under some sort
of obligation to proactively provide it to customers (sec 3 sub B).

> All modifications of the
> code are forced to be covered by the GPL. The customer at this point has
> the opertunity to then contribute those changes back to the community as
> the GPL explicitly allows redistribution. The difference being that the
> company in question doesn't have to distribute the changes back to us,
> but they have to distribute them to their clients.

No, they merely need to make them available.  You could correct your
statement by saying "..., but they have to be willing to distribute them."

Note specifically that I have struck "to their clients", because that is 
not the way the GPL works (sec 3 sub B).  Because the GPL grants the 
holder the right to further distribute it, the responsibility to be 
willing to distribute is not limited in the way you suggest.

Now, once we finish correcting your statements, we wind up back at my
original statement:

They are not required to contribute changes back.  They are merely
required to disclose the source code for the Asterisk portion of their
product.

:-)

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.