[Asterisk-Users] SysMaster and GPL Violation

[Steven Critchfield]

On Fri, 2004-11-12 at 12:24 -0600, Joe Greco wrote:
> > 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.

Would seem odd if they signed the disclaimer that there should be any
surprise.

> 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.

No one is being forced to sign it over. It is only a requirement for
those who want their patches merged with the main Digium maintained
tree. There is nothing stoping anyone from maintaining their own patch
set seperate of the main tree. To an extent, screw the FSF's opinion on
this. They aren't trying to make this project work nor pay the bills of
the company that is. In the same line where they say it is "ethically
tainted", they also say the copyrightholder can do what ever they want.

> > > 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).

So the only part that isn't explicilty correct in my comment above is
the assumption that some customer would seek it out. You have assumed
the other option.

> > 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.

Maybe we have to draw you a diagram. When anyone accepts GPL code. They
can make changes to their hearts content. At this point nothing has to
be returned. IF they distribute the binary, they need to make available
the modifications and the code to the client. You are right that it
doesn't have to be a proactive, in your face, this is open source
software action. The client that chooses to excersise the right is then
able to contribute the code back to another GPL project, or at least
redistribute the code. 

The reason it has to go through a client is because no one else really
has standing in that license. Only the client has received the derived
works and therefore the right to the modified code. The reason most
people don't bother keeping the modifications private is that as soon as
one customer decides to redistribute the code as is allowed under the
GPL, the edge held by having the code hidden is lost. It is better to
know when you loose that edge.
 

-- 
Steven Critchfield <critch at basesys.com>