[Asterisk-Users] SysMaster and GPL Violation

[Joe Greco]

> 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.

Odd, our IP lawyer has always suggested that being as explicit as possible
is always a good idea, precisely to avoid any misunderstandings.

> > 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.

You contradict yourself.  If you want to be a contributor to Asterisk, you
must sign the agreement.  You cannot be a contributor to Asterisk without
signing the agreement.

> There is nothing stoping anyone from maintaining their own patch
> set seperate of the main tree. 

That's not contributing to the project.

> To an extent, screw the FSF's opinion on this.

Really?  Be very careful.  Once you say that, you really begin to slide 
back down from Mount Principles into the depths of license evil.

> They aren't trying to make this project work nor pay the bills of
> the company that is. 

Well, I've been saying that Stallman's on crack for years, as have many
others, but GPL advocates always seem to be wearing the rose colored
glasses where all resources are free and there's never a reason to charge.
Surely, Stallman in his tenured MIT position has very little clue what 
it's like out in the real world, where one has to pay for stuff...

But if you're going to adopt the GPL, and then you're going to cut a big
hole in it, then I don't think it's wrong to at least discuss it, in a
variety of contexts, including that which would likely be promoted by the
FSF.

> In the same line where they say it is "ethically
> tainted", they also say the copyrightholder can do what ever they want.

Of course, because that's legal fact.

> > > > 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.

No, you've stated that they must disclose it to customers.  If they
distribute it, that's not what the GPL says.  At all.  The GPL says that
they must be willing to disclose it, and offer to do so.  That's very
different than what you say.

> > > 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. 

Maybe you need to talk to a lawyer about being precise.

> 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. 

Right.  That's not at odds with what I said.  So your pretty diagram is
worthless.

> 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.

That doesn't make any sense, since you know that you were virtually certain
not to be able to hide the code in any case.  Anyone who would try is just
a moron.

I'm fully aware of what the GPL says and what it requires.  You've still
failed to show any error in my statements.

I'm not going to attribute to the GPL things which are not required by the
GPL.  You are welcome to, but I reserve the option to call you on it.

Deal?

... 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.