[Asterisk-Users] SysMaster and GPL Violation

[Michael Giagnocavo]

>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

"To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted"

What's this guy smoking? Oh well, let's let Stallman judge Digium. Good
idea. Not. 

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

"The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer
does, this is not a "violation" of the GPL."

Again, let Stallman call out nasal demons against whoever he wants.
Meanwhile, I think Digium should be able to do whatever they want with code
they've made, or code disclaimed to them.

>>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.

Where does Digium FORCE people to sign away rights? No one is FORCED to
contribute the code to Digium. You're fine to make your self-maintained
version and do whatever you'd like.

>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).

Yes, but only Mark/Digium can assign that right. Nothing surprising.


>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.

Sure, so they disclose that back to their customers, who can then contribute
it back, if they so desire. I believe that was the intent of the poster.

-Michael