[Asterisk-Users] SysMaster and GPL Violation

[Joe Greco]

> Citat Joe Greco <jgreco at ns.sol.net>:
> 
> [SNIP]
> > There are a number of competing theories on whether or not the author of a
> > public domain bit of code could be liable, with varying amounts of case
> > law,
> > as I understand it:
> > 
> > 1) One theory is that you may place code in the public domain, with
> > explicit
> >    no-warranty disclaimers (this seems sensible to me).
> > 
> > 2) Another theory says that such disclaimers are not legally binding, and
> >    that you would need to embed it within a license, copyright agreement, 
> >    contract, or something like that to prohibit use of the code in the 
> >    event that the recipient did not agree.
> > 
> > 3) Another theory says that liability is only a concern where money has
> >    changed hands.
> > 
> > There are apparently some finer-grained distinctions in there somewhere.
> > 
> > I don't know if I'd want to submit major changes to a project and open
> > myself up to the possibility of having to legally test whether or not a
> > no-warranty clause on a public domain code contribution could be enforced.
> [SNIP]
> 
> I'm not in favour for Public Domain disclaims either, but that is something
> any contributor should take up with himself.

Or, preferably, with a good lawyer.  It is fairly certain that the no
warranty clauses are sound.  It is less certain that public domain code
would necessarily afford you that protection.  :-(

> [SNIP]
> > > The second one does neither state, that you sign your copyrights over to
> > > Digium. It gives Digium a non-exclusive, non-revocable right to use your
> > > changes. That's it.
> > 
> > I'd check with our IP lawyer if I really cared.  However, it looks a bit
> > more sweeping than that.  Even though I'm not a lawyer, I can disprove your
> > statement:  if I sign this agreement *and don't even contribute anything*,
> > but were to purchase ownership of a patent covering something that
> > conflicts with Asterisk, this agreement grants Digium rights that you 
> > haven't acknowledged.
> > 
> > See, that's the ugly thing about legal documents.  There are endless things
> > to consider.  We can of course agree that it ought not work that way, but
> > that's just pie-in-the-sky.
> 
> Section 4 is a bit fishy, i would agree on that, however it doesn't really
> apply
> outside the United States (yet, and hopefully never, at least not for Europe).

We have some dumb legal stuff.  Heh.  Look at our most recent Attorney
General.  Patriot Act.  'Nuff said.

> Simply because software patents is a phaenomenon, that not exists in Europe
> (covering me) at this point.
> For me personally, if I would go down the road and get a software patent that
> would conflict with Asterisk, I still had no problem with the fact, that I
> couldn't make Digium pay. 
> 
> It is the price you pay for using and contributing, if you sign this
> disclaimer,
> the IP of Digium.

"But I thought the price I paid and the rights I got was all outlined in 
the GPL!"

> But that is a personal choice. If I wanted to cover me from not giving Digium
> of
> any such patents, that I own, I should not contribute (but drag money out of
> them for my patent :o) ) or disclaim the patches i contribute to the public
> domain.

However, the agreement doesn't say "as of this moment".  It talks about
future acquisitions, and makes the provision binding upon the contributor.

What if you signed this, and some years later Digium went closed-source?
It appears to me as though there are still avenues forward in which Digium
would have the right to take your work into their private codebase.

Sweetheart arrangements *have* gone sour in the past.  I certainly have no
reason to expect Digium to do any such thing, but are you willing to sign
a paper that legally obligates you to do certain things, and cannot be
withdrawn or cancelled once tendered?

> Anyhow, where is the spirit ? You are advocating FSF and the GPL and taking in
> consideration, that you ever would have a software patent ?

We're a business.  There's no reason to think that we could never acquire a
company that had software patents.

> Because a hardware patent can hardly conflict with Asterisk.
>  
> [SNIP]
> > The one who's looked at the Asterisk web site, has gone to the bugs link,
> > and is then confronted by the short form disclaimer, and doesn't really
> > know or care about Digium, or that there was some requirement that s/he
> > become intimately familiar with some "evil company" (and be aware that some
> > GPL advocates view companies thusly) and all of the above.
> > 
> > Or, to turn this around:  What harm would there be in outlining this 
> > explicitly within the agreement itself?
> [SNIP]
> 
> I do agree, that the Asterisk Website should state something about Asterisk
> License. I was surprised that there not even is mentioned, that it is GPL. The
> only mention of GPL is that it is based on a GPL copyrighted PRI stack.

Um, it's in LICENSE in the Asterisk source tree, and in the headers of the
source files.  The GPL, that is.

> [SNIP]
> > > Only if they haven't read the essential Documentation (Read README) and
> > > the disclaimer before they sign it.
> > 
> > I read the essential Documentation.  A year ago.  I've long since forgotten
> > most of it, as would most people without a photographic memory.
> 
> Surely, but if you contribute to a project, shouldn't you allways check the
> license ? Would LICENSE, COPYRIGHT or README be the first places to look, if
> not
> on the website ?

Yeah.  I see the LICENSE file.  It says nothing about dual licensing.

Now you're starting to see my point.  It's not immediately obvious.  I
think lack of disclosure, at least to potential contributors, is a bad thing.

> > > Where i come back to:
> > > [SNIP]
> > > > 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.
> > > [SNIP]
> > > 
> > > How can you come up with such a claim, that has no base whatsoever ?
> > 
> > All right, I concede that the rights aren't being signed over to Digium.
> > That wasn't really the point, and was an error on my part.
> > 
> > Please delete everything after that comma, which edits it into a claim
> > that does have a base.
> 
> I'm just trolling over this, becaue i've seen various people on various lists
> trying to convince people, that it is fact. Just a couple of days ago, when i
> was searching on the BlueZ lists, i found somebody who told people not to
> contribute to Asterisk, because you would sign over your copyright. This was
> posted in October, quite shocking. People just don't read the contents of
> Licenses and Disclaimers anymore. They just take comment somebody else made as
> true without checking. And off the snowball rolls.

Yeah, I see that happen too.  I try to be accurate for that very reason.
Sometimes I mess up.  :-)

> > What rights, you ask?  Why, one comes immediately to mind:  the right to
> > distribute a change exclusively under the GPL, in the contributor's name.
> > This is commonly done, and is functionally what most contributors to a
> > free software project would expect to happen with contributed changes.
> 
> If so, you are allowed to fork or distribute your own patches and not sign any
> of the disclaimers. This is what Klaus-Peter Junghanns does with the bristuff
> patch (adds various addons, including full DSS1 BRI support to Asterisk, Zaptel
> and Libpri and enabled Asterisk for a whole range of standard ISDN cards) and
> chan_capi. He refuses to sign the disclaimer because he doesn't agree with the
> Dual License that Asterisk is maintaining and his work contain contributions
> from others, that are GPL only.
> 
> It just doesn't go in the asterisk mainstream source then. Might be cumbersome,
> but that is the way it is.

I don't even think there's anything wrong with that, and it is interesting
to hear that there's already a forked project.

... 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.