Ok I have known about this for over a month now and have yet to see anything come of it. Just a little note that Sysmaster is packaging up Asterisk in their product and not giving a notice with the product with an offer to the source of the the GPL software they use inside their products. They even lie and tell people such as myself outright that it's not Asterisk. If Digium doesn't push the issue it only weakens the GPL. I have been quiet about this far too long and I feel its only right that they come clean and either license the product at the full rate Digium requests and pay that fee on every box they have sold from day one or offer up the source code. (Either way the Asterisk community wins) So all you Sysmaster owners run strings on the 'voipgw' binary that runs on those boxes and you'll see that its asterisk. If you have doubts I'll post more proof. bkw
Brian West wrote:> Ok I have known about this for over a month now and have yet to see anything > come of it. Just a little note that Sysmaster is packaging up Asterisk in > their product and not giving a notice with the product with an offer to the > source of the the GPL software they use inside their products. They even > lie and tell people such as myself outright that it's not Asterisk. If > Digium doesn't push the issue it only weakens the GPL. >So just to be clear: if vendors package Asterisk into their own "product", they need to make it clear that it's running on Asterisk? Or do they simply offer to make the source available for free (which, if you give root access to the server, they will be able to get to)? Or both? IANAL so can someone with more experience shed some light on this? Maybe someone from Digium themselves can chirp in and lay down the facts straight once and for all? Cheers flynn
Brian West wrote:> So all you Sysmaster owners run strings on the 'voipgw' binary that runs on > those boxes and you'll see that its asterisk. If you have doubts I'll post > more proof.I have had a few customers inquire about sysmaster's usage of Asterisk. One of them granted me access to his system, to determine what was under the hood. All I had to do was crack open the computer, pull the hard drive, jack it into my own Linux box and mount it. After a very quick scan of the hd, which is a pretty typical, yet minimal, Linux OS, I found the 'voipgw' application. Here is a selected portion of the strings output: [root@localhost ~]# strings voipgw | grep Mark Written by Mark Spencer <markster@linux-support.net> [root@localhost ~]#strings voipgw | grep CVS Asterisk CVS-05/30/03-20:39:27 built by admin@SysMaster on a i686 running Linux CVS-05/30/03-20:39:27 Asterisk CVS-05/30/03-20:39:27, Copyright (C) 2000-2002, Digium. Asterisk CVS-05/30/03-20:39:27, Copyright (C) 1999-2001 Linux Support Services, Inc. [root@localhost ~]# strings voipgw | grep Asterisk Asterisk IO Dump: %d entries, %d max entries Asterisk Schedule Dump (%d in Q, %d Total, %d Cache) Started Asterisk Event Logger Asterisk Event Logger Started Restarted Asterisk Event Logger Asterisk Event Logger restarted Asterisk Dynamic Loader Starting: -= Registered Asterisk Alternative Switches =- -= Registered Asterisk Applications =- Asterisk PBX Core Initializing Asterisk CVS-05/30/03-20:39:27 built by admin@SysMaster on a i686 running Linux Asterisk %s cancelled. Asterisk %s ending (%d). Asterisk ending (%d). Preparing for Asterisk restart... Restarting Asterisk NOW... Exit Asterisk Shut down Asterisk imediately Gracefully shut down Asterisk Restart Asterisk immediately Restart Asterisk gracefully Restart Asterisk at empty call volume Disconnected from Asterisk server Connected to Asterisk %s currently running on %s (pid = %d) Asterisk CVS-05/30/03-20:39:27, Copyright (C) 2000-2002, Digium. -r Connect to Asterisk on this machine Asterisk CVS-05/30/03-20:39:27, Copyright (C) 1999-2001 Linux Support Services, Inc. Asterisk already running on %s. Use 'asterisk -r' to connect. Asterisk Ready. Asterisk Asterisk Console on '%s' (pid %d) Loads the specified module into Asterisk. Unloads the specified module from Asterisk. The -f Shows Asterisk modules currently in use, and usage statistics. Shows Asterisk version information. Exits Asterisk. Causes Asterisk to abort an executing shutdown or restart, and resume normal Shuts down a running Asterisk immediately, hanging up all active calls . Causes Asterisk to not accept new calls, and exit when all Causes Asterisk to hangup all calls and exec() itself performing a cold. Causes Asterisk to stop accepting new calls and exec() itself performing a cold. Causes Asterisk to perform a cold restart when all active calls have ended. [root@localhost ~]# strings voipgw | grep ast_ ast_restore_tty ast_default_amaflags ast_pbx_outgoing_app ast_translate ast_io_add ast_sendtext ast_closestream ast_set_indication_country ast_cdr_start ast_dsp_digitreset ast_context_remove_switch ast_context_add_include ast_sched_add_timer_func ast_verbose ast_async_goto ast_indicate ast_channel_register [snipped for posting] A complete strings output is here: http://www.nufone.net/downloads/voipgw.txt Upon confronting sysmaster with this fact, they (Mike Fahey, Ray Martinez, and other more technical people) completely denied their usage of Asterisk insisting they developed their solution in-house. I too demand sysmaster either pay Digium for a non-gpl license or publicly admit the fact that they have repackaged Asterisk and contribute enhancements to Asterisk back to the GPL. Jeremy McNamara
> to see anything come of it. Just a little note that > Sysmaster is packaging up Asterisk in their product and not > giving a notice with the product with an offer to the source > of the the GPL software they use inside their products. They > even lie and tell people such as myself outright that it's > not Asterisk.Seems like strong evidence for a GPL violation. The Linux netfilter team was very active in the past few months to find license infringements with their software (Routers with iptables based firewalls). They won all their cases (mostly before they came to a court), usually gaining a publishing of the modified source code under GPL and a 'donation' to one of the open source foundations or their project team. So if one of the asterisk core team members wants a contact, Harald Welte was the one who fought this iirc (see http://gnumonks.org/users/laforge for contact details). Stefan
> So all you Sysmaster owners run strings on the 'voipgw' binary that runs on > those boxes and you'll see that its asterisk. If you have doubts I'll post > more proof.Is that these guys? http://www.sysmaster.com/p_vp_pbx.htm -- Cheers, Matt Riddell _______________________________________________ http://www.sineapps.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html) http://www.sineapps.com/rssfeed.php (Daily Asterisk News - rss)
> From: Matt Riddell <matt.riddell@sineapps.com> > > what's about slashdot? > > Matteo > > Yup. > > 1. The strings prove it is Asterisk > 2. They deny it is > 3. We have multiple sources who can confirm this > > So, let's all post the article on GPL violation to Slashdot. > All in favour?No I'm not. One of the asterisk regulars (doesn't have to be Mark but can) should write to them and give them a hint about what 'the project' expects from them and why (the proves etc.). Something like a GPL publication of their code and small to medium donation to the asterisk project. Set them a deadline for reaction (7 to 14 days). Furthermore the only one who can claim a GPL violation is a buyer of their software, since only the direct customer has to be informed about sourcecode availability. Give them one more chance to react before slashdotting them. Since I suspect they will not, have your slashdot fun afterwards (in a week or two) ;-) Just my 2 cents and a claim for communication culture Stefan
> On Sat, 2004-11-13 at 06:03, Joe Greco wrote: > [SNIP] > > However, the specific item that stopped me was the second paragraph of > > the short disclaimer, because our lawyers would never allow signing of > > a blanket statement such as "and will do nothing to undermine it in the > > future". (As it was, the remainder of that paragraph would have had to > > have been sent off to the lawyers, as I don't really have a grasp on how > > much legal territory that might cover). > > > > That sent me off to look at the long disclaimer, at which point it > > eventually became apparent what you were actually trying to accomplish. > [SNIP] > > So you have read both disclaimers. Yet you state: > > [SNIP] > > Digium is making people sign a draconian agreement that gives up rights > > to patches and features that are integrated into Asterisk, by signing > > rights over to Digium. > [SNIP] > > Which is definatly the wrong way to see it, because the first disclaimer > says, that you disclaim all rights, but not that you pass them over to > Digium. In fact you make your source public domain.You didn't read the second paragraph, did you. If making changes public domain was all that would be required, there would be no need for that second paragraph. Or, for that matter, for the first. Merely placing "This source code is in the public domain." within the code in question is sufficient for the purpose, though it may be easier for Digium to work that out out-of-band, in which case a first-paragraph-only agreement would make sense. Interestingly enough, placing something in the public domain is potentially riskier than providing it under either the BSD or GPL licenses, because both licenses provide a strong no-warranty clause. There are a number of competing theories on whether or not the author of a public domain bit of code could be liable, with varying amounts of case law, as I understand it: 1) One theory is that you may place code in the public domain, with explicit no-warranty disclaimers (this seems sensible to me). 2) Another theory says that such disclaimers are not legally binding, and that you would need to embed it within a license, copyright agreement, contract, or something like that to prohibit use of the code in the event that the recipient did not agree. 3) Another theory says that liability is only a concern where money has changed hands. There are apparently some finer-grained distinctions in there somewhere. I don't know if I'd want to submit major changes to a project and open myself up to the possibility of having to legally test whether or not a no-warranty clause on a public domain code contribution could be enforced.> The second one does neither state, that you sign your copyrights over to > Digium. It gives Digium a non-exclusive, non-revocable right to use your > changes. That's it.I'd check with our IP lawyer if I really cared. However, it looks a bit more sweeping than that. Even though I'm not a lawyer, I can disprove your statement: if I sign this agreement *and don't even contribute anything*, but were to purchase ownership of a patent covering something that conflicts with Asterisk, this agreement grants Digium rights that you haven't acknowledged. See, that's the ugly thing about legal documents. There are endless things to consider. We can of course agree that it ought not work that way, but that's just pie-in-the-sky.> > Now, that's all well and fine, you obviously /can/ do it, but what most > > disturbs me is that people might sign the short form agreement without > > understanding exactly what it is that they're agreeing to. > > > > If someone believes that they are contributing software to a GPL'd > > software project, and does not realize that the nature of your disclaimer > > allows Digium to release their changes under a non-GPL'd license, then > > that is breaking with the spirit of the GPL. > > It has never been a hidden fact, that Digium runs Asterisk under a Dual > License. Digiums Website (http://www.digium.com -> Software Products) > states: > ...... > Digium? specializes in the production of Open Source telecommunications > software to accompany our hardware offerings. Most Digium software is > licensed under GNU GPL, but may also be licensed commercially from > Digium. > > And then a listing of software, including Asterisk. > ...... > The README states: > * LICENSING > Asterisk is distributed under GNU General Public License. The GPL > also must apply to all loadable modules as well, except as defined > below. > > Digium, Inc. (formerly Linux Support Services) retains copyright to > all of the core Asterisk system, and therefore can grant, at its sole > discretion, the ability for companies, individuals, or organizations to > create proprietary or Open Source (but non-GPL'd) modules which may be > dynamically linked at runtime with the portions of Asterisk which fall > under our copyright umbrella, or are distributed under more flexible > licenses than GPL. > ...... > > Which contributor should not be aware of the fact, that Digium has the > right to relicense his changes ?The one who's looked at the Asterisk web site, has gone to the bugs link, and is then confronted by the short form disclaimer, and doesn't really know or care about Digium, or that there was some requirement that s/he become intimately familiar with some "evil company" (and be aware that some GPL advocates view companies thusly) and all of the above. Or, to turn this around: What harm would there be in outlining this explicitly within the agreement itself?> > Yet no matter how much I don't care for the GPL, I find myself believing > > contributors who don't fully understand the disclaimer merely to be naive, > > but Digium looking a bit unscrupulous in this regard. > > Only if they haven't read the essential Documentation (Read README) and > the disclaimer before they sign it.I read the essential Documentation. A year ago. I've long since forgotten most of it, as would most people without a photographic memory.> Where i come back to: > [SNIP] > > Digium is making people sign a draconian agreement that gives up rights > > to patches and features that are integrated into Asterisk, by signing > > rights over to Digium. > [SNIP] > > How can you come up with such a claim, that has no base whatsoever ?All right, I concede that the rights aren't being signed over to Digium. That wasn't really the point, and was an error on my part. Please delete everything after that comma, which edits it into a claim that does have a base. What rights, you ask? Why, one comes immediately to mind: the right to distribute a change exclusively under the GPL, in the contributor's name. This is commonly done, and is functionally what most contributors to a free software project would expect to happen with contributed changes. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
> > It is also being used by IBM against SCO. And so if IBM attorneys think > > it's good, there's good chance it is.Actually my comment was not a serious "this is why" reply, it was intended as humerous reply to this silly discussion. (As there really is no problem with the soundness of the GPL.) Nor do I give a heck what any layman say on the subject as THAT is the real joke. FSF has designed and used the GPL Very Very effectively without needing to go to court, for years. Against numerous violators. Which is really the way it should be. (So tight that other lawyers don't even bother to challange it in court.) It was designed by some very competent license attorneys and has been acknowledged as a very good license by other outstanding attorneys. Of which I don't see one single one on this list. Listening to discussions about law by people who are not layers, which at that would be practicing in the appropriate areas, is like townspeople getting together shooting the shit. It's keeps them busy and entertained, and sometimes rallied up over nothing. Since this is an area which seem to keep peoples imagination going on forever maybe someone should start a small server (Yahoo offers this) to discuss the GPL. Should be very busy and entertaining. Having long since gotten bored with this thread I only dipped in to indicate the futility of this discussion. The thread started out with a honest attempt to put attention on someone that appeared to be GPL violator. Digium put an end to the discussion but the thread refused to die. If someone thinks he has found a valid problem with the GPL why not DO something about it and send off an email to FSF. These discussions can at this point only result in upsetting people who buy into arbitraries conjugated by laymen. -- Steve Szmidt "They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin