[asterisk-biz] Response to KP Flemming...

[Kevin P. Fleming]

----- trixter aka Bret McDanel <trixter at 0xdecafbad.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 09:12 -0500, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> > ----- trixter aka Bret McDanel <trixter at 0xdecafbad.com> wrote:
> > > Since the code does appear to be very much identical to code that
> was
> > > denied to exist in the first place, but links were posted that
> makes
> > > it
> > > appear identical in many ways.  Kinda makes one wonder what the
> real
> > > story is.
> > 
> > Nobody denied that this code existed.
> > 
> I never said that anyone denied the code existed, stop rearranging
> what
> was said to suit your needs.  Please read what is actually said
> instead
> of living in fantasy land.  It would make everything so much easier.

Your own quote, five lines above mine, unless I am mistaken, clearly states that you believe the code is nearly identical to something that Digium denied the existence of until proven otherwise.

> Kinda makes one wonder what the real story is when there is so much
> hostility over such a little issue.

Where do you see hostility? We posted a very simple, direct and straightforward response denying that the code that was posted was the code that we use to build G.729 binary codec modules, and that in the interests of not being sued over potential copyright or licensing violations, we were removing the links to it from our mailing list archives. There was no hostility involved on our part whatsoever.

> If it isnt your code why are you so bent over it?  Digium goes out
> and
> gets links removed on other sites without knowing whose code it is
> (as
> they claim) to protect this phantom entity.  Maybe the entity that
> wrote
> that code wanted it released.

Digium did not ask to get links removed from any other sites, to my knowledge, and if any Digium employee did so, it was done without consulting with management or our legal team. If that occurred, I would appreciate being notified of it off-list so that it can be dealt with appropriately.

Since the vast majority of the code that was posted did not claim to come from Digium, and was clearly from a third party that everyone is aware of (and who does not provide any license agreement that allows redistribution of that source code), it is very clear to nearly everyone involved that posting that code was in violation of at least one party's copyright.

-- 
Kevin P. Fleming
Senior Software Engineer
Digium, Inc.