[Asterisk-Users] Business Edition

[Adam Goryachev]

On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 04:50 +0100, Kevin Walsh wrote:
> Andrew Kohlsmith [akohlsmith-asterisk at benshaw.com] wrote:
> > I dunno... people seem all up in arms about this but honestly I fail to
> > see the problem.  Digium is doing what they can to make money and provide
> > services while keeping Asterisk as free and openly developed as possible.
> >
> Services could be provided, and money could be made, without resorting
> to selling closed source versions of the product.  Apparently, the
> closed version consists of the contents of CVS HEAD, with various
> changes made to "increase reliability and decrease risk" - according to
> the FAQ.  It would be nice if the binary version's source was available
> as a branch in CVS, but that probably doesn't fit into a closed source
> business model very comfortably.

yes, but as has been pointed out by multiple people, it is HARDER to
support an open source product, as you never know what patches or other
screwy things the admin has done.... I really don't think it is that big
an issue. Besides, if you open source ABE, then some (stupid) bean
counter would try and say that ABE is not any good simply because it is
open source... some people still believe it is better if they get less!!
(I know, it is hard to believe, but these people really do exist).

> I suspect that there is now less of an incentive to produce stable
> branches, and backport fixes to those branches from the development
> version, as this could possibly reduce the value of the closed version
> somewhat.  It could turn out that we eventually find the project in a
> permanent "in development" state, with no stable releases at all - just
> the CVS HEAD.  Once you start down that road, and rely upon revenue
> generated from closed source products, it's difficult to turn back.

Well, since CVS stable is entirely maintained by the asterisk community,
I suppose that is likely to continue exactly as-is, regardless of what
Digium do. Of course, it has been noted that Russell is working single
handedly, and really could use some assistance from other people. Now is
your opportunity to stand up....

> > I have (small amounts of) code contributed to Asterisk and I am working on
> > more.  Digium and Asterisk have given me a lot of newfound freedom and
> > flexibility and power in my phone system.  I appreciate that, and I don't
> > feel that this dual-licensing or granting of a nonexclusive perpetual
> > license to the bits and pieces of my code is too much to ask.  My bits
> > and pieces would be worthless without the bits and pieces and chunks and
> > slabs of code that others have provided, and it'd all be useless without
> > the framework that Digium came out with. 
> > 
> Asterisk would not be the product it is without the efforts of the
> community who, it seems, have provided the majority of the source
> code and support for the project.

Not quite.... maybe by counting line numbers of code Digium have written
less than 50% of the code, however, without Digium's support and
original (even if only 10% code) contribution, asterisk would not exist
today. So, remember, Digium are continually 'giving' to the community
even if they do nothing other than reject the occasional patch, and
accept a few others (yes, it is important to reject patches sometimes as
well!).

> Of course, Digium try their best
> to not accept patches to "their" code unless they are accompanied with
> a "disclaimer".

Of course, they won't commit them to CVS, but it doesn't mean that you
can't write them and release them.... see bristuff, chan_capi, etc...

> According to the bug tracker (http://bugs.digium.com/main_page.php),
> the "disclaimers" are insisted upon "in order to keep copyright clean,"
> even though it has been pointed out, several times, that the agreements
> have no effect on copyright at all.  The "disclaimers" exist to grant
> Digium the right to close and sell your code.  If you're happy with that
> then that's your choice to make.

Wrong thread.... irrelevant to ABE.

> > If you don't want or don't like ABE, don't use it.  Nobody is cramming it
> > down your throat.  
> That's not the point.

Right, the point is that some people demand the equivalent of ABE from
their suppliers, and Digium as a commercial company (ie, they like to
get paid) decided that it might as well be them rather than
NEC/Avaya/Cisco.

They have also (very nicely) assured us that they won't even throw in
any added extras for that $1000... Basically, they could have said
something like this:
"Pay us $1000, download and install CVS from this exact date/time, and
you will get support". Except that have also added some extra 'security'
to ensure that you won't go and screw around with your 'version'/source
code.

Regards,
Adam