[Asterisk-Users] RE: Business Edition

[William Lloyd]

On 23-Jul-05, at 11:22 AM, Kevin Walsh wrote:

>> On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 18:18 +0100, Kevin Walsh wrote:
>>
>>> Adam Goryachev [mailinglists at websitemanagers.com.au] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 04:15 +0100, Kevin Walsh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For this reason, I believe that if a fork were
>>>>> ever necessary, it would struggle to beat a distinct path away  
>>>>> from
>>>>> the Asterisk Binary Edition
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Correct, until the point where there is MORE features being  
>>>> added to
>>>> the forked version of asterisk than the digium version of asterisk.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That can't happen, because the ABE could, and probably would, absorb
>>> all of the advances in the fork, while forging ahead with the
>>> original.
>>>
>>>
>> Since the fork would be GPL only, if ABE 'absorbed' the new features,
>> then it would 'become' GPL, and therefore would need to be  
>> released as
>> GPL, and hence would no longer by ABE :) So, that can't happen.  
>> Any other
>> ideas?
>>
>>
> You're forgetting about the "disclaimer" documents.  Anyone who signed
> the perpetual agreement and made changes and/or enhancements to the
> Asterisk code (a fork would still be using Asterisk code) would  
> firstly
> be obliged to inform "the owner", and would secondly have a prior
> agreement with "the owner" to allow them to use and close the code.
> That would neatly bypass the GPL and allow the new code to be folded
> into the Asterisk Binary Edition.

It's unlikely that the current pool of asterisk developers will  
remain static however.  People change jobs, new people find asterisk  
interesting, people that have not contributed before start to  
contribute.

Assuming a fork were to happen one day.  Lots of current developers  
would stay with the Digium tree because they know it, are digium  
partners, think it's a better idea, already signed the disclaimer and  
don;t have an issue with it etc.  Many new developers submitting  
smaller patches would not bother to sign a legal disclaimer and just  
submit the patch to the full GPL tree.  The splinter GPL tree would  
likely integrate the changes faster and obviously don;t care about a  
disclaimer.

The practicalities of tracking the changes between two source trees  
would just get more and more time consuming for Digium.  They will  
want to make 100% legal sure that every change they bring into their  
tree comes from somebody with a disclaimer.

Rewriting the missing bits with other programmers would just help the  
tree's diverge faster.

Meanwhile a full GPL tree can just plow ahead without concern.

Many companies successfully manage the commercial GPL gap.  MySQL for  
example.  The difference in this case is selling a binary only  
version instead of making money off just hardware and support  
services/contracts.

At the end of the day Digium own the Asterisk trademark and in the  
world these days, brand name recognition is often more important than  
the product behind it.

-bill