[asterisk-dev] [Code Review] Remove chan_usbradio and app_rpt.

[Tilghman Lesher]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Steve Totaro wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Steve Totaro wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Steve Totaro wrote:
>> >> > http://business.zibb.com/trademark/zaptel/29737279
>> >> >
>> >> > Filing Date:1999
>> >> >
>> >> > Zaptel used by Jim Dixon common law trademark with interstate
>> >> > commerce
>> >> > was
>> >> > at the latest 1999 and probably earlier.  I cannot find the original
>> >> > BSD
>> >> > driver for the first Tormenta card, but that was the start of the
>> >> > Zaptel
>> >> > Telephony Project.  If it was before the federal filing date, then
>> >> > they
>> >> > had
>> >> > no grounds for anything laying claim.
>> >>
>> >> No.  Timeline matters for copyright law.  This is trademark law.  It
>> >> is completely different.
>> >
>> > Um wrong.  Pretty clear
>> > cut http://www.dailyblogtips.com/qa-how-does-trademark-law-work/
>> >
>> > I could post the actual laws, but this is much more simple for the
>> > layman.
>>
>> The link says it does not
>> matter who registers first, only who starts using it first.  You've
>> done the research, apparently, to figure out when Zaptel Corporation
>> (calling cards) registered their mark, but you haven't done the
>> research to say when they first started using the mark.
>
> Read above.

Zaptel Corporation apparently started using the mark in 1999 or
before, the date of the registration of the mark.  Digium (previously
Linux Support Services) released the first version of Zaptel, version
0.1.0, in 2001.

>>  Digium has
>> paid staff attorneys, and if they made the determination that it was
>> not worth pursuing, it's a pretty safe bet that Zaptel Corporation was
>> using the mark first.
>
> Doubtful, There was a three year moratorium on transitioning from the Zaptel
> name.  You would probably have noted that if you really knew the true story.

I was working for Digium at the time.  There was no three year
moratorium, just that Digium was busy on other things, and Zaptel
Corporation had been really patient with Digium about the infringement
of their mark, but finally demanded that Digium do something about the
infringement.

>  So in 2005 the decision was made to change from Zaptel to something that
> Digium could put a trademark on.

The decision was that since we were getting bitten by a trademark
issue on the name, we would find a name that we could put a trademark
on, such that we would not have to go through that rename a second
time.  There were lots of proposals internally, and the particular
name (and spelling) of DAHDI was based upon a trademark search to
ensure that we weren't infringing on anything else.

>> Additionally, it matters not one whit when the Zapata Telephony
>> Project started, only when Digium started using the mark.  The Zapata
>> Telephony project is a completely separate organization from Digium,
>> and if they plausibly have a trademark on the Zaptel name, that does
>> not extend to Digium.  Separate organizations, separate trademarks.
>
> Again, the driver for the first Tormenta card was called zaptel.

Irrelevant, because Digium never made the Tormenta ISA card.

> I did the research, the timelines on when Digium started using the Zaptel
> name from the Zapata Telephony project are not defined and I cannot find the
> code.  I will check the repo and see how far it goes back, to .3 I think,
> frame relay.

Zaptel version 0.1.0, released in late 2001, was the earliest version
I could find.

>> >> >> The maintainers of app_rpt have made a strategic decision that
>> >> >> they don't want to do the work to make their code compatible with
>> >> >> DAHDI.  There's no technical reason why they couldn't -- there's
>> >> >> several competing hardware manufacturers who have kept pace and made
>> >> >> their work compatible with DAHDI.
>> >> >
>> >> > Who are these competing vendors????  I know of zero.
>> >>
>> >> Let's start with Xorcom, whose drivers are distributed with DAHDI.
>> >> There are others, some of which work with DAHDI drivers as
>> >> distributed, some of which modify DAHDI post-distribution.
>> >
>> > What is the model or name of the Xorcom Radio Interface?  You are being
>> > very
>> > vague and I cannot find that product offering.
>
> You snipped a link of mine that makes your look like a silly boy.  It isn't
> proper to snip links to change the context of discussion.

I snipped a link that was utterly irrelevant to the discussion.  You
went off on a tangent insisting that I had said Xorcom created a radio
interface, and I did not.  I reincluded the relevant paragraph from a
previous email, to remind you exactly what I said.

>> I never said that there were competing radio interfaces, only that
>> other companies had kept pace with the changes in DAHDI for their
>> hardware.  Xorcom makes a USB-based channel bank, among other
>> offerings, and their xpp USB driver interface was distributed with
>> Zaptel and is still distributed with DAHDI today.
>
> And there are several vendor who didn't.  Digium botched up, said DAHDI was
> going to be a find and replace function of Zaptel and then sure enough broke
> a bunch of stuff that you claim they did not break.  LOL.

Where exactly did I say that they didn't break anything?  I agreed
that the radio interface was broken, and the Zapata Telephony team
made a strategic decision not to update their driver to work with the
new release.

> It is OK to be wrong, I have been involved in this much longer then you.
>  Ignorance to these things is to be expected.

I've been involved in this project since at least mid-2002, and there
is publically archived evidence to that fact:
http://web.archive.org/web/20020723050749/http://asterisk.drunkcoder.com/.
 Unfortunately, the older list archives have long since been lost.
When did you get involved?

-Tilghman