asterisk users - Jun 2005 - Re: New JAVA application server for Asterisk - OrderlyCalls

Hello Adam,

    Thank you so much for taking the time to write to me.  I can 
understand your concerns; let me see if I can address them.
>Matt,
>
>Sourceforge.net is exclusively for hosting software whose licensing
>terms meet the OSI's definition of Open Source:
>
>  http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php
>
>Your licensing terms include the following, which is not compliant
>with the OSI definition:
>
>  Usage Restrictions
>
>  In addition to the restrictions of the LGPL, the following
>  restrictions apply: ...  OrderlyCalls may not be used to provide or
>  augment call queuing without the prior written permission of Orderly
>  Software.
>  
>
I am familiar with the OSI definitiion.  I've read it again, but I can't
work out exactly how asking for permission contravenes this definition.  
Perhaps you could clarify with a more specific reference?

Here's the relevant section from the OrderlyCalls licence file 
(available at http://orderlycalls.sourceforge.net ):
-----------------------
In addition to the restrictions of the LGPL, the following restrictions 
apply:

1)  OrderlyCalls MAY NOT be used to automate 'cold-calling'.

Orderly Software takes a strong stand against SPAM.  If you wish to use
OrderlyCalls to call people without their prior consent, you MUST write to
m@orderlysoftware.com explaining why you need to do this.  At our discretion
we MAY decide to issue permission in specific cases.

2)  OrderlyCalls MAY NOT be used to provide or augment call queuing without
the prior written permission of Orderly Software.

The reason for this is that Orderly Software provides an advanced queue
management system called OrderlyQ, that lets callers hang up and call back
when they reach the front of the queue.  OrderlyQ is patent-pending,
and we do NOT allow the use of OrderlyCalls to provide similar
functionality.

By adding this restriction, we are erring on the side of caution, so if you
want to use OrderlyCalls in conjunction with call queuing, but you are not
intending to emulate OrderlyQ, you MUST write to m@orderlysoftware.com and
explain how you intend to use OrderlyCalls. 

We anticipate that we will be very happy to give consent in most cases.
-----------------------

So my first question is, are you objecting to the first usage 
restriction regarding SPAM calls?  We feel this restriction is very 
important as we sincerely do not wish OrderlyCalls to become a nuisance 
to anyone.  Or are you objecting to the second restriction only?

The purpose of the second restriction is to ensure that OrderlyCalls is 
not used to infringe the intellectual property embodied in OrderlyQ, 
even by accident, with a view to avoiding litigation and other troubles 
*before* they can happen.  OrderlyQ is a very specific application, and 
we would only consider witholding permission in cases of clear 
conflict.  We do not wish to restrict the use of OrderlyCalls beyond 
these boundaries, and by asking people to seek permission before they 
make the investment of coding, we can co-operatively ensure and verify 
that their plans do not involve such a conflict. 

This is to the developer's advantage, as once we've issued permission, 
the developer can ensure that he/she is not exposed to litigation risk 
from us.  We feel that specifically eliminating this 'grey area' as 
early as possible in the development process is therefore to everyone's 
benefit, hence the restriction.  I really don't expect we'll be 
witholding permission very often, if ever.
>While I understand your motivation and empathize with the plight of
>open-source business, unfortunately you must either:
>
>  a) remove this restriction
>
>            - or -
>
>  b) remove your project from sourceforge.net
>
>Please take action soon so that this matter does not need to be
>escalated to the sourceforge.net admins.
>  
>
I'm more than happy to refer to sourceforge.net for guidance on this 
matter, and will do so myself if necessary, however I know they're very 
busy people, and I'd hate to bother them inappropriately.  I also need 
more information on the specifics of your objection before I can take 
action.

Might I suggest therefore that for the moment we continue this 
discussion in a spirit of open and friendly co-operation, with a view to 
finding a solution together, and thereby avoid adding to their workload?

I'd also like to suggest that we move this discussion to the 
OrderlyCalls mailing list, orderlycalls-general@lists.sourceforge.net, 
as I feel this is a more appropriate place for the discussion, and I 
don't want to burden the inboxes of the subscribers to Asterisk lists 
inappropriately.  You might also choose to respond privately with your 
concerns; in any case I'd be happy to post the resolution of this issue 
more widely once we've worked out together exactly what that will be.

For the meanwhile, if you're concerned about this issue, and considering 
using OrderlyCalls with call queues, please don't be scared, and do just 
ask!

Many thanks,

Matt King, M.A. Oxon.
Managing Director, Orderly Software Ltd.
Author, OrderlyCalls and OrderlyQ.

Matt King <m@orderlysoftware.com> writes:
> I am familiar with the OSI definitiion.  I've read it again, but I
> can't work out exactly how asking for permission contravenes this
> definition.
> 2)  OrderlyCalls MAY NOT be used to provide or augment call queuing without
> the prior written permission of Orderly Software.
"6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

 The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program
 in a specific field of endeavor.  For example, it may not restrict
 the program from being used in a business..."

  http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

  - a

Matt King wrote:
> The reason for this is that Orderly Software provides an advanced queue
> management system called OrderlyQ, that lets callers hang up and call back
> when they reach the front of the queue.  OrderlyQ is patent-pending,
> and we do NOT allow the use of OrderlyCalls to provide similar
> functionality.
I'm quite curious about how this could be patented, since it's already
happened to me quite a few times to run into queuing systems that call
me back when I reach the front of the queue.  Wouldn't that qualify as
prior art?

(I'd have many more grounds to dislike the notion that it could be
patentable, but the "prior art" one is one where my viewpoint and the
law's might agree!)

-- 
Emanuele