[Asterisk-Users] Re: Asterisk forking, Was: Digium Website Update:Asterisk Business Edition

[The VoIP Connection]

This is a very interesting converation, but it seems like the BIZ forum
might be more appropriate...

Michael Crown
Managing Partner
www.thevoipconnection.com
321.989.6728 ext. 611
sip:611 at voiceserver.thevoipconnection.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Howard [mailto:faxguy at howardsilvan.com] 
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 11:30 AM
> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Asterisk forking, Was: 
> Digium Website Update:Asterisk Business Edition
> 
> Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
> 
> >On Saturday 11 June 2005 19:51, Lee Howard wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>I don't think that "lack of mindshare" completely defines 
> the reasons 
> >>behind Asterisk fork failures.  It places all of the blame on the 
> >>forkers.  I think the truth, though, is that they not only 
> fail due to 
> >>"lack of mindshare" but also due to competition from Digium's own 
> >>Asterisk community.  Forks are not succeeding, yes, but 
> Digium has a 
> >>hand in that... of course they do.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm curious: how does Digium have a 
> >hand in a fork failing?
> >  
> >
> 
> That's what I tried to explain in my last post, in particular 
> after this first statement.  Forks enter a "hostile 
> competition" rather than a "healthy competition".
> 
> >>I've heard more talk about Asterisk forks than I've ever 
> heard about 
> >>forks of any other other open-source project.  I think that 
> this says 
> >>something about how difficult-to-swallow Digium's 
> dual-license decree 
> >>is for a lot of prospective contributors/developers.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >I disagree; if it were that hard to swallow the project 
> would either be 
> >90% digium-written (it's not) or it would be a total flop 
> (again it's not).
> >
> 
> If you (or someone else reading this post) is in a position 
> to give statistics on what percentage of the code is 
> Digium-written (or Digium-rewritten - in the case where a 
> disclaimer is not obtained for some unpatented work and 
> Digium rewrites the work independently) then I would be 
> thrilled to see it.
> 
> >>We see this happen all of the time with the Linux kernel.  
> It happens 
> >>with HylaFAX.  It happened with X.  I'm sure it happens a lot with 
> >>many other open-source software projects.  It happens easily and 
> >>usually is a "healthy" process because the playing field is even.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Agreed.   But where are the successful Asterisk forks?
> >  
> >
> 
> I don't know of any successful Asterisk forks (unless 
> http://www.asteriskwin32.com is considered "successful" - 
> although I'll admit that I'm not really in-the-know).  But 
> this was my point: that the way things were set up by Digium 
> makes a successful fork difficult.  
> Digium always has an upper-hand, and things were set up 
> intentionally this way.  Again, I don't take particular issue 
> with this.  I'm just trying to explain why forking Asterisk 
> would not be a particularly easy task.
> 
> >>Of course, this "healthy" forking cannot be done with 
> Asterisk because 
> >>Digium will not accept any non-disclaimed code into their 
> repository.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >... What you'd described about distribution-maintained patches has 
> >nothing to do with this.  Digium could take a 
> distribution-maintained 
> >patch and rewrite it into Asterisk proper under the dual license (as 
> >could any other
> >contributor) and you'd still gain the benefit of the patch.  I'm not 
> >sure I see where you're going here.
> >  
> >
> 
> If you (or someone else reading this) has the necessary 
> information to provide statistics on how what percentage of 
> the code comes from rewrites of non-disclaimed code, then I 
> would be particularly interested in hearing it.  I suspect, 
> though, that it is a rather small - perhaps insignificant - 
> amount.  But, yes, providing that there is not a patent 
> involved - yes, the work could be rewritten and integrated.  
> But this was my point: that given the right environment forks 
> can benefit from each other.
> 
> The one thing that an Asterisk fork can never do, though, is 
> relicense itself.  Only Diguim can do that.  If Digium had 
> wanted an equal footing in this regard then Asterisk would be 
> LGPL or BSD or something a bit more liberal.  So if I'm a 
> manufacturer of PBXes and have some proprietary IP that I do 
> not wish to be GPLed, then if I want to use Asterisk somehow, 
> then I can really only work with Digium for licensing.  All 
> of the other forks will be license-prohibitive.
> 
> >I have to admit that I know quite a few people with their 
> own modules 
> >and such to replace what they feel is bad code and just won't 
> >contribute it back to Asterisk due to the friction they've received 
> >about the patch.  I, on the other hand, tend to bitch loud and 
> >continuously enough and wear them down to the point of 
> accepting it.  
> >:-)
> >  
> >
> 
> So we're not in disagreement, it would seem.  Getting code 
> contributions into Digium's Asterisk codebase is not 
> something that many average people are going to want to 
> undergo.  From what I've seen, "friction" is a bit light of a 
> term for it.  It seems much more hostile than that.  
> And, that's often even before the disclaimer hurdle is reached.
> 
> Lee.
> 
> 
>