[asterisk-users] Zaptel project being renamed to DAHDI

[Steve Totaro]

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Russell Bryant <russell at digium.com> wrote:
>
> On May 29, 2008, at 8:00 PM, Andrew Joakimsen wrote:
>
>> I am wondering two things:
>>
>> 1) What are the implications, trademark-wise, for 3rd party hardware
>> vendors? Will Digium crack down on the use of DAHDI name? Will some be
>> forced to call it the "Prominent North American Opensource Telephony
>> Vendor's Hardware Device Interface?" (PNAOTVHDI)
>
> The trademark policy for DAHDI is the exact same as it is for Asterisk
> and other trademarks owned by Digium.  For more details, see the
> official trademark policy:
>
> http://www.digium.com/en/company/view-policy.php?id=Trademark-Policy
>
>>
>> 2) In the article you posted you reference more than just a simple
>> name change. How will this affect the use of 3rd party cards, e.g.
>> Sangoma. Is Digium committed to keeping DAHDI as open as Zaptel,
>> making it easy for 3rd party vendors to piggy-back their drivers onto
>> the architecture? Is digium trying to make these cards obsolete in
>> Asterisk 1.6?
>
>
> We are not doing _anything_ that will prohibit other hardware vendors
> for making compatible drivers.  For anyone that has drivers that work
> with zaptel, changing them to work with DAHDI is as simple as doing a
> search and replace in the code.  We are changing things in the least
> amount possible for the most part.  The additional changes being made
> don't affect the interfaces.  Those changes are:
>
> 1) removing some extremely old digium hardware drivers that nobody uses
>
> 2) splitting up the code to distribute the kernel drivers separately
> from the user space utilities, for easier packaging and distribution
>
> 3) removing some backwards compatibility stuff that was there for user
> space applications compiled against older versions of zaptel.  These
> aren't needed as there are no older versions of DAHDI.
>
>
> If you have any more questions, feel free to ask, and I will do my
> best to clear up any confusion.
>
> --
> Russell Bryant
> Senior Software Engineer
> Open Source Team Lead
> Digium, Inc.
>

This is just me reading between the lines and expecting Digium's
shrewd business activities.

1.  I am no lawyer, but it seems that Zaptel's use in Asterisk is
significantly different than the Zaptel selling calling cards.

'Use for different goods or services

The registration of a trademark includes an indication of the goods or
services which it is intended to protect. This means that, in
principle, others are free to use the trademark for other goods or
services. However, there are some exceptions. As explained earlier, a
trademark always runs the risk that it loses its distinctive
character, which could mean that the trademark at some point is
annulled.

It is also an infringement if the use of the mark is such that it
harms the trademark holder in an unfair way. The reputation or image
that he has built could suffer from somebody elses use of the mark.
For example, the Dutch holder of the trademark King (who makes
peppermints) was able to successfully stop someone else from selling
condoms under the same trademark."

I don't see how Digium's use of Zaptel would hurt the reputation or
image of the Zaptel company selling calling cards, and therefore is no
infringement.  Besides, what company is going to allow trademark
infringement for two years!?!?

2.  We recently saw what happened with Google and the AdWord
"Asterisk".  Usually, things like this that don't go over well when
done all at once are slipped in more slowly.  There was huge backlash
at which point Digium changed it's position.  I think it is more about
control.  Control that will be phased in more slowly.

3.  In two years, only the old school Asterisk people will even know
about Zaptel and Jim Dixon's Zapata Telephony Project.

4.  I hope you are not referring to or removing support for Tormenta
cards, they are still used quite a bit.

5.  "We are not doing _anything_ that will prohibit other hardware
vendors for making compatible drivers."

 I am sure that is true but what happens when they use the trademarked
term DAHDI?  AdWords getting banned, cease and desist letters for
trademark infringement for being "DAHDI" compatible.  We have seen it
before with Asterisk as I stated before, it is just a matter of time
before it gets slipped in more slowly so instead of the whole
community enraged, a small minority will be affected one at a time.

Shrewd is not a bad word, in fact it can be good.

Thanks,
Steve Totaro