[Asterisk-Users] SysMaster and GPL Violation

[Joe Greco]

> >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. 

Well, you have to remember that the GPL is a product of Stallman.  :-)

> >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.

Well, see what I said.  If you want to be a contributor to this allegedly
"free software" project, you are forced to sign away your rights.

I'm struggling to think of another free software project where contributed
code bearing an identical GPL or BSD license would require any such
additional disclaimer.

> >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.

Yes, but that's not what the original poster said.

> >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.

The intent of the poster is a nice thing indeed, but really one shouldn't
go saying things drastically different about the requirements of the GPL
from the reality of the GPL in defense of the GPL.

... 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.