[Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Paul]

Peter Nixon wrote:

>On Saturday 08 October 2005 19:25, Jeremy McNamara wrote:
>  
>
>>smbPBX wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Any thought from the business comminity?
>>>      
>>>
>>Furthermore, I better not see any H.323, G.729 or OpenSSL support in
>>this forked version or I will make it personal and sick the legal types
>>after whomever is responsible.
>>    
>>
>
>Well, given that you didn't design H323 (The ITU did) or SSL (Netscape did as 
>far as I remember), and you don't own the patents to g.729 I would say that 
>you are full of shit and don't have any say in the matter. Given that your 
>chan_h323 code is full of bugs it didn't even make the cut for the fork 
>(chan_skinny also). Any other code that you have in OpenPBX was released 
>under the GPL and anyone anywhere is perfectly free to use it. (Most of it 
>will probably be removed before too long in any case as we are trying to make 
>OpenPBX stable...)
>
>If you have any legal problems with any of the above please feel free to 
>direct them to:
>
>Rosenblatt & Company
>Cizik Han Building
>Kore Sehitleri Caddesi No. 33,
>Zincirlikuyu, Istanbul, Turkey
>
>
>  
>
I agree that the H323 and SSL issues are non-issues in the case of a fork.

If there is an valid issue with G.729, it applies to all of us using GPL 
binaries that are not generated by Digium.

The patent owners would view locally compiled GPL asterisk and a GPL 
fork of asterisk equally. If they permit me to buy codec licenses from 
digium and use them with an asterisk that I have modified there is no 
reason to prevent me from doing the same with a fork.

I recently was reading the policy changes at the G.729 site. I think 
those changes make it look like Digium is grandfathered into a license 
that would not be granted today.