[asterisk-users] Asterisk Faxing Support

[Lee Howard]

Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:

>On Wednesday 28 February 2007 7:53 pm, Lee Howard wrote:
>  
>
>>The problem, however, as we all know, is that the Asterisk maintainer,
>>Digium, requires undue retribution in the form of "disclaimers" before
>>it will accept any contribution into the code repository - and in this
>>case the author of the desired contribution is reasonably refusing.
>>    
>>
>
>Undue?
>

Yes, by definition, undue: unwarranted, not owed.

The GPL on Asterisk, as distributed by Digium, affords the user various 
rights to use, modify, and redistribute.  Part of the philosophy behind 
the GPL is so that modifications can - without further licensing - be 
returned and used by all users of the software, perhaps even being 
merged in upstream... and thus those that modify and redistribute 
"repay" the licensor in kind.  In this case, however, the repayment in 
kind - per the terms of the licensing - is not enough for the licensor 
to accept.

>Digium requires disclaimers so they can dual-license it for ABE and 
>other commercial vendors.
>

Of course I know this, but maybe others reading don't.

You should be able to understand why a licensee who makes a modification 
would not want to either sign a disclaimer or put their work into the 
public domain.

>You're purposely twisting and distorting the 
>reality with these weasel words.
>  
>

Honestly, I'm not trying to be weasley or any thing of the sort.  Nor am 
I trying to twist or distort the truth.  Have I made a statement that is 
untrue?

>If you don't like it, use something else.
>

Well, I do have several options, and I dabble in many of them as I 
dabble here.  Know, however, that I only ever hear this kind of 
counter-productive suggestion here.

>There's no need to take jabs at the 
>company.
>

Really, I was not intending to take jabs at all.  Rather, I was trying 
to explain or condense the sentiment that you seemed to be sidestepping.

Lee.