[asterisk-users] FXO Cards - T38

[Tzafrir Cohen]

On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 08:25:15PM +1100, Rob Hillis wrote:
> Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> >> I'm also curious as to why you assert that using G.729 in Asterisk
> >> (/not/ ABE) at the same time as a T.38 implementation that relies on
> >> SpanDSP since these are two completely separate plugins that are
> >> installed and acquired separately.  
> >>     
> >
> > They are not installed separately. They are modules loaded into the same
> > memory space. 
> >   
> 
> Absolutely they are installed separately.  G.729 is a product you
> /purchase/ and the install onto your Asterisk server and load as a
> completely separate module to app_fax.  The fact that they are /written/
> by the same company is irrelevant.
> 
> >> That's almost like asserting that
> >> you can't run any commercial X application if you've installed my XYZ
> >> web browser on the same machine.   Just because they use a common
> >> software base (X in this instance) /doesn't/ mean that you're violating
> >> the GPL by running non commercial software on the same machine.
> >>     
> >
> > Those are two separate processes. Completely separate from one another.
> > This is a common misunderstanding of the GPL (or of the application of
> > copyrights laws to computer software).
> >   
> 
> Perhaps not the best example.  Perhaps a better example is the
> /proprietary/ nvidia video driver used by a large number of people with
> NVidia hardware - myself included.  Granted, x.org is not released under
> the GPL license, however assuming it was then by your logic you wouldn't
> be able to use the nvidia driver.

As you mentioned, X.org is not GPL. There's no nVidia driver for, say,
Xvnc :-)

> 
> To my mind, this is a ridiculous situation and needlessly limiting.  It
> goes from the ridiculous IP extremes of companies such as Microsoft to
> the other end of the scale.  

IP is the Internet Protocol. We're talking about copyrights here. Don't
try to bundle in completely different cencepts such as patents and
trademarks.

> I am yet to find /any/ situation where any
> kind of extremism is a good thing.  If the FSF starts trying to enforce
> conditions such as these, they're going to look every bit as bad as the
> companies such as Microsoft or Lexmark have in the past and do
> themselves some significant damage.
> 

Right. So why don't we all start using the g729/g723 code from 
  <imagine_URL_here>
? Is it OK for Cisco or Avaya to start merging parts of the Asterisk
source code into their products?

Maybe in a different world the coyright laws woulld be different and
hence copyleft would not be needed. Right now it is what we have.
Copyleft licenses (mostly the GNU GPL and the GNU LGPL) have played an
insturmental role in the generation of a large and solid pool of
software you can freely use and modify.

In addition, it is not the FSF folks that are "aggressivly forcing
licenses". The FSF has, for years, avoided such pulic actions and
preferred quiet settelments.

Sadly, this has not been good enough. As even reputable companies often
don't abide to the license under which they distribute their software.
And ignore requests to do so.

The developers of busybox tried before:
http://www.busybox.net/shame.html

But then again, those developers are a bunch of "Internet Protocol
extremists". They produce nothing useful.

-- 
               Tzafrir Cohen
icq#16849755              jabber:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com
+972-50-7952406           mailto:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com
http://www.xorcom.com  iax:guest at local.xorcom.com/tzafrir