[Asterisk-Users] SysMaster and GPL Violation

[Joe Greco]

> I hope this is the last time I have to comment on this...
> 
> > 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.
> 
> How about GCC, GLIBC, etc?  Do you think Digium came up with those 
> disclaimers on our own?  No, we used the FSF ones with the exception that 
> the "long version" of ours has the original author retain copyright with 
> Digium as unlimited licensee, whereas the FSF requires copyright 
> assignment to the FSF and an unlimited license back to the original 
> author.  This distinction is because the FSF wants to be able to enforce 
> the GPL on code they did not author, whereas with Digium and Asterisk we 
> are more concerned that we do not allow contributions to pollute our 
> ability to make licensing decisions.

Hello, Mark,

Correct, and that is a fundamental ideological difference.  This works
for the FSF because their intent is merely to enforce the GPL.  You're
trying to do something else with it.  Those are not the same thing,
regardless of how similar the text implementing them is.

> Again, as with the FSF projects, nobody is *required* to make any such 
> disclaimer -- only if you want your changes to be included in what we 
> distribute as Asterisk.  By and large, I think people are willing to do so 
> because Digium has worked very hard to keep adding value to Asterisk and 
> because we've stuck to our guns on being sure that Digium created code 
> always remains Open Source and available under GPL.  Personally, I am very 
> much aware of the trust the Asterisk community has given to Digium, and 
> likewise I am very much aware the security and the independence *from* 
> Digium that GPL gives them.  Our future is totally dependent upon our 
> ability to continue to earn the support, help and loyalty of the community 
> at large.

I don't think any of that's at debate.

My *particular* concern is that people who would like to contribute to
Asterisk are told that they have to sign "this here disclaimer", and many
coders have not spent tens of thousands of dollars dealing with IP lawyers,
so the finer points (especially of the short disclaimer) might escape them.

It is counterintuitive that a project frequently referred to as a GPL'd
free software project would in fact have a sponsor that is licensing the
code under non-GPL terms, presumably for profit.  Messages on this very 
list in the past few months have suggested that some people prefer the 
GPL precisely because they believe that this should not happen in a GPL'd
project.

As someone who might have contributed changes to Asterisk, I did do a
little inspection to determine how hard it was to get patches committed
to Asterisk, because I had a few minor adjustments to suggest, but I was
a bit shocked to run into these disclaimers which are required for
contributions to the Asterisk tree.  I would have had no problems
releasing such contributions under a BSD-style license (which is GPL-
compatible), which would normally be sufficient to most other free
software projects.

However, the specific item that stopped me was the second paragraph of
the short disclaimer, because our lawyers would never allow signing of
a blanket statement such as "and will do nothing to undermine it in the 
future".  (As it was, the remainder of that paragraph would have had to
have been sent off to the lawyers, as I don't really have a grasp on how
much legal territory that might cover).

That sent me off to look at the long disclaimer, at which point it 
eventually became apparent what you were actually trying to accomplish.

Now, that's all well and fine, you obviously /can/ do it, but what most
disturbs me is that people might sign the short form agreement without
understanding exactly what it is that they're agreeing to.

If someone believes that they are contributing software to a GPL'd
software project, and does not realize that the nature of your disclaimer
allows Digium to release their changes under a non-GPL'd license, then
that is breaking with the spirit of the GPL.  The FSF writes two points
beginning at:

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

which address issues relating to this, though I also have the opinion 
that Stallman has spent too many years in a cushy tenured academic 
position to be making such sour statements.

Yet no matter how much I don't care for the GPL, I find myself believing
contributors who don't fully understand the disclaimer merely to be naive,
but Digium looking a bit unscrupulous in this regard.

Is there any way that we can prevail upon you to at least fully disclose
what is going on to prospective contributors, perhaps in your disclaimer
files?

That obviously won't fix the "moral standing" problem that the FSF would
describe, but there's a certain type of moral standing to be gained from
open disclosure of your intent and disclosure of the actual purpose of 
the disclaimer.  It would allow contributors to make their contribution
while being fully cognizant of their additional gift to you.

I believe that to do so would help Digium avoid any negative feelings 
from future contributors who were caught unawares, and would promote 
the "support, help, and loyalty of the community at large" which you 
value.

Regards,

... 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.