[Asterisk-Users] Free Software or not -- that's the question /* New subject */

[Steven Critchfield]

On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 18:47, asterisk at lists.styx.org wrote:

> I have always been suspicious of centralized control and dictatorship,
> benevolent or otherwise. After thinking for some time about the 
> licensing structure of code for Asterisk, I am not sure that
> their motives are so innocuous and altrusitic, or at least
> this is not reflected so well in the fine print. After learning
> that "all code must pass through Mark", I am even less sure.
> It means that Digium remains in a position of control and 
> dominance over what is ostensibly communal property.

I seem to remember at one point that all code in the official linux
kernel had to go though Linus. Did we suffer? I don't think so. All code
going through Mark isn't a bad thing. If you look through the cvs logs,
you might see there are 3 or so commiters right now. I know jeremy is
able to commit, but I think he is limited(probably self imposed) to the
h323 stuff. As has been mentioned to you once before in the course of
your 2 flame-bait threads, someone has to verify that all contributed
code has come from a user who has disclaimed the code, or otherwise
licensed Digium to redistribute it.

> > Where are you trying to take this?
> 
> That is a very good question. I know that GPL code cannot be
> included in Asterisk as it stands, even though Asterisk is
> licensed under the GPL. This strikes me as incongruinous and
> should be fit. I also know that contributions to Asterisk, if
> they are accepted may be re-released under the GPL only at
> Digium's discretion -- for this there should perhaps be a 
> clause in the disclaimer that says "if your contributed code
> is included in Asterisk it will/must be included in the GPL
> version as well".

I think you are still trying to imply that Digium accepts patches that
are applied to a private copy of Digiums but not released to the GPL
version. Maybe you are one of the ones who still hasn't had the pleasure
of meeting and getting to know Mark Spencer. Or maybe you think Digium
is such a large company so as to be able to handle the extra work load
of maintaining a special extra patched up private copy and forward port
all of our patches to this fictional copy. 

The patches submitted to Digium are pretty much only accepted and
applied to the public CVS, or they are denied. When they are denied, you
can usually expect a comment on why. I have had a few patches rejected,
and a few accepted. When they had been rejected, Mark had his own
reasons and told me how to modify my patches to get them accepted.  

> I have been on the point of suggesting a pure-GPL fork of
> Asterisk for these reasons for some time but two things have
> held me back. First, I wanted to exhaust all options of trying
> get Digium to loosen their control of the project, and 
> second I don't want to fragment the community unnecessarily.
> However, communal ownership and development of the code is
> in my mind far more beneficial to everyone than the centralized
> model we have now. 

Why don't you go ahead and figure out how to play in the group instead
of whining how we should give you a ball to go start your own group. 

> So I am trying to convince Digium to delegate some authority
> to the community at least over the GPL branch of the code --
> which is ostensibly community property anyways.

It isn't really community property when the majority of the code is Mark
Spencer. If it is to be considered property, it is owner by a select
few. Remember as a user, you are only licensed to use it, you get no
ownership rights. 
-- 
Steven Critchfield <critch at basesys.com>