[Asterisk-Users] SysMaster and GPL Violation

[Joe Greco]

> [snip]
> 
> > > > Really?  Wouldn't it be nice, then, if Digium explicitly stated that this
> > > > was their intention, in their little agreements?
> 
> Why aren't YOU stating your own intention with this whole thread, or do you 
> even realize it fully yourself?

I do.  I don't believe you do.

> Your intent, whether you realize it or not, is to effectively chain Mark 
> and all the contributors by the ankles and make them work for your benefit, 
> until they starve to death.  You can dance around and say outright that you 
> don't really want that, but everything else you're saying leads to that result.

Nope.  If anything, I'd have preferred to see Asterisk licensed under a BSD
license, where this wouldn't even be a consideration.

You'll note that I've said a number of times that I believe authors are
entitled to do as they wish with their work.  That's a central idea to
this discussion, but not only from a "Mark's rights" point of view.

> > > 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.
> 
> Capitalizing a false concept doesn't make it any more real.

Most people would agree that the FSF has a highly principled - even if
unrealistic - view of what "free software" should mean.  We don't all
agree with it, but if you use the GPL and then you selectively pick and
choose certain principles, that would generally be considered sliding
down the slippery slope.

> >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.
> 
> And you are contradicting yourself, here.  First you say its not wrong to 
> discuss it, and then you say its wrong to suggest that the copyright holder 
> can do what they want, which is exactly what Mark is doing. 

I'm not contradicting myself; I would never say anything other than the
copyright holder can do what they want, and I really don't know where you
got that from.  Having the right to do what you want, however, does not
make you totally exempt from other considerations.

> Make up your 
> mind, would ya?  Or are you instead saying the copyright law is immoral and 
> should be abolished? That would be nice, wouldn't it.  Then you could seize 
> all of Mark's work outright and you wouldn't have to argue and type so much.

I really have very little interest in Asterisk.  I've been using it to set
up an office PBX.  Under the terms of the GPL, I'm free to do that, and to
make any local changes I would like, without any flak from Mark or anyone
else here.  I've already seized that work, just as you have.  You want to
criticize someone?  Go find someone who's distributing it in violation of
the GPL.

> The fact is, I and everyone else defending Mark are doing so because Mark's 
> right are MY rights, 

No, Mark's rights are Mark's rights.  If he graciously grants you a GPL
license to use his code, that is a privilege which could be revoked in
the future - there's no guarantee you will get your hands on Asterisk 2.0.0.
(He cannot revoke your right to use something that was GPL'd, but that's
about it...)

> they are their rights, and they are even YOUR rights 
> (yes, everyone get to go along for the ride).  We're talking about the 
> right of the creator of something of value to use and dispose of it as he 
> sees fit; otherwise known as property rights. 

No, we're not talking about that at all.  You've completely missed the
point.  We're talking about property rights of contributors.

> Your saying he doesn't have that right, and I'm saying he does.

I said no such thing.

> Just because he adopted the GPL in some form doesn't mean that Asterisk is 
> now public property.

Well, not exactly.  The GPL's intent is to try to create a meta-class of
public software.  Mark still owns title to it, of course, but the GPL
grants rights in a manner designed to accomplish certain goals.

> Yes, he took the GPL, modified to his own use, and went forward.  We all 
> know this, and SO WHAT?  Asterisk is his product, its his decision to do 
> with as he sees fit, and you don't have to like it.  You can either use 
> Asterisk by whatever terms he makes up, or not, and that is that.

Actually, he didn't take the GPL and modify it.  To do that would require
him to call the license something besides "GPL".

The point is about the finer points of contributed code ownership, and what
happens from a licensing point of view..

> All this other crap is you trying to say that Mark has no right to do with 
> Asterisk what he wants, when he made it in the first place, simply because 
> of what terms he chose and how he chose them.

All this other crap you accuse me of saying...  I didn't.

> Or for some other poster, because he chose to use Asterisk in his 
> corporation and now _somehow_ he should have some say in how its 
> developed/maintained just because he's using it.  Well you know what, you 
> can always stop using it if you don't like it, or you never should have 
> started in the first place.  You knew what the score was when you started, 
> and if you didn't its your own fault for being too lazy to read and 
> understand.

Actually, I did in fact read the license included with Asterisk, as I do
with all software licenses, since we as a company have certain legal
obligations.  I did not find any reference to the dual-licensing model in
the included license.  I was at a point where I was seriously considering
contributing a few little patches, and only then found out indirectly that
there was a complication.

So it's not my own fault for being too lazy to read and understand, and
this very thread ought to be sufficient evidence that I've got some
experience with IP property claims.

> In my opinion, Mark's biggest mistake has been adopting the GPL in the 
> first place.  He could have written his OWN general public license verbage 
> and called it something else, and then noone would have this angle to 
> question whether or not he was trying to trick or deceive people into 
> handing over their intellectually property for nothing.

I wouldn't even go that far.  I don't think there's necessarily anything
horribly wrong with what is happening, but I'd like it to be fully
disclosed, preferably up front, and absolutely disclosed within the 
disclaimer agreements, so that contributors cannot possibly be under the 
mistaken assumption that their code is only being distributed under the 
GPL.

Wouldn't that be fair and equitable?

... 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.