Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2000 8:44 pm Post subject: "Re: [Asterisk] H.323"
marko said:
Quote:
> I think that H.323 is somthing worthwhile enough that if it comes down to
> the licensing, then perhaps a new stack should be written. Of course, Mark
> probably doesn't have enough time along with everything else he has to do,
> so this would require some volunteers.. Unfortunately, my programming
> experience is limited to Perl.
Writing H.323 is what we like to call a "non trivial task". The protocol
is so unreasonably complex that interoperation with another vendor is
actually a pretty significant accomplishment.
I think Vovida has implemented a subset of H.323 but I don't know how far
along their code is.
I was alerted to presence of this thread by a kind Asterisk/OpenH323
person, so I've sort of come in half way through.
Here are are some points to consider:
1) The Vovida H.323. stack is MPL, not LGPL and certainly not GPL. It is
this way because it was forked from the OpenH323 project last year.
2) We are unable to relicense OpenH323 under LGPL/GPL/whatever because
we would have to get approval from all of the contributors to OpenH323
to do so. This is simply not possible, and was discussed in length
eariler this year on the OpenH323 list.
3) Marko does not have this same restriction. As he is the sole
contributor to Asterisk (please correct me if I am wrong, Marko), he can
re-license Asterisk anyway he likes. This was also discussed earlier
this year on the OpenH323 list.
4) I would welcome any initiative that seeks to allow Asterisk to use
OpenH323. But from my point of view, it is the silly restrictions on the
GPL that prevent Marko from doing so. I certainly have no problems with
this occurring, and there is nothing in the MPL that prevents it.
Regards,
Craig Southeren
P.S. for those who don't know me, I'm half of the team that started the
OpenH323 project 18 months ago. Feel free to look me up on Spring VON
2000 in San Jose tomorrow Wed Mar 29 - I'm talking in one of the
sessions at 8:15 - 9:30 am.
-------------------------------------------
Equivalence Pty Ltd
Home of FireDoor, MibMaster & PhonePatch
For Open Source H.323 - see http://www.openh323.org
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2000 7:47 am Post subject: "Re: [Asterisk] H.323"
Quote:
1) The Vovida H.323. stack is MPL, not LGPL and certainly not GPL. It is
this way because it was forked from the OpenH323 project last year.
If that's the case, someone needs to tell Vovida, because when I click on
the download page it tells me that the license is LGPL.
Quote:
2) We are unable to relicense OpenH323 under LGPL/GPL/whatever because
we would have to get approval from all of the contributors to OpenH323
to do so. This is simply not possible, and was discussed in length
eariler this year on the OpenH323 list.
This is why the FSF requires copyright assignment, to prevent the
licensing mess that you claim to be in. Would your contributors really
object to licensing under LGPL in addition to GPL?
Quote:
3) Marko does not have this same restriction. As he is the sole
contributor to Asterisk (please correct me if I am wrong, Marko), he can
re-license Asterisk anyway he likes. This was also discussed earlier
this year on the OpenH323 list.
Some of Asterisk's components (such as the MP3 decoding technology) are
covered under GPL, and thus Asterisk as a whole (unless I remove those
parts) must also be covered under GPL. To support OpenH323 I would have
to throw out the components that I used which are under GPL. In my case
it is impossible to get permission to link with MPL with all components
because one of the components is by a now defunct company.
Quote:
4) I would welcome any initiative that seeks to allow Asterisk to use
OpenH323. But from my point of view, it is the silly restrictions on the
GPL that prevent Marko from doing so. I certainly have no problems with
this occurring, and there is nothing in the MPL that prevents it.
If neither license can budge, then the most likely best option would be to
build an OpenH323 to IAX gateway. That way, since I am the only author of
the IAX code, I could easily allow it to be linked to the OpenH323 stack.
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2000 10:58 pm Post subject: "Re: [Asterisk] H.323"
Quote:
If that's the case, someone needs to tell Vovida, because when I click on
the download page it tells me that the license is LGPL.
Actually, they have been told. This is a potential problem.
Greg
/********************************************************************
Greg Herlein Quicknet Technologies, Inc.
Director 415-512-1306
gherlein@quicknet.nethttp://www.quicknet.net
*********************************************************************/
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2000 6:49 pm Post subject: "Re: [Asterisk] H.323"
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:47:00 -0600 (EST)
Mark Spencer <markster@marko.net> wrote:
Quote:
> 1) The Vovida H.323. stack is MPL, not LGPL and certainly not GPL. It is
> this way because it was forked from the OpenH323 project last year.
If that's the case, someone needs to tell Vovida, because when I click on
the download page it tells me that the license is LGPL.
The download page says LGPL, but the code itself contains the original
MPL headers. In fact, the code contains both MPL and LGPL components.
I'll contact them and let them know - thanks for the head's up!
Quote:
> 2) We are unable to relicense OpenH323 under LGPL/GPL/whatever because
> we would have to get approval from all of the contributors to OpenH323
> to do so. This is simply not possible, and was discussed in length
> eariler this year on the OpenH323 list.
This is why the FSF requires copyright assignment, to prevent the
licensing mess that you claim to be in. Would your contributors really
object to licensing under LGPL in addition to GPL?
I believe that copyright and licensing are not the same thing. But I'm
not a lawyer, so I may be wrong...
Many of the contributors to OpenH323 did so on the explicit basis that
they would be able to use the resultant code under the terms of the MPL.
We would NOT get approval from all of the contributors to relicense - I
know this for a fact.
Quote:
> 3) Marko does not have this same restriction. As he is the sole
> contributor to Asterisk (please correct me if I am wrong, Marko), he can
> re-license Asterisk anyway he likes. This was also discussed earlier
> this year on the OpenH323 list.
Some of Asterisk's components (such as the MP3 decoding technology) are
covered under GPL, and thus Asterisk as a whole (unless I remove those
parts) must also be covered under GPL. To support OpenH323 I would have
to throw out the components that I used which are under GPL. In my case
it is impossible to get permission to link with MPL with all components
because one of the components is by a now defunct company.
If the company is defunct, then you simply have to find who owns the IP
that used to be owned by the company. If no-one owns it, then it may be
freely usable.
An interesting problem....
Quote:
> 4) I would welcome any initiative that seeks to allow Asterisk to use
> OpenH323. But from my point of view, it is the silly restrictions on the
> GPL that prevent Marko from doing so. I certainly have no problems with
> this occurring, and there is nothing in the MPL that prevents it.
If neither license can budge, then the most likely best option would be to
build an OpenH323 to IAX gateway. That way, since I am the only author of
the IAX code, I could easily allow it to be linked to the OpenH323 stack.
Could you relicense Asterisk under the LGPL? Then, you could at least
link OpenH323 into Asterisk, rather than having it as a completely
seperate module or gateway. The MPL would allow this with no problems.
Regards,
Craig Southeren
-------------------------------------------
Equivalence Pty Ltd
Home of FireDoor, MibMaster & PhonePatch
For Open Source H.323 - see http://www.openh323.org
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2000 2:45 pm Post subject: "Re: [Asterisk] H.323"
Quote:
I believe that copyright and licensing are not the same thing. But I'm
not a lawyer, so I may be wrong...
They are not. In order to get your code into gcc, for example, you must
assign copyright to the FSF so that they own 100% of gcc, even with
contributions. You're welcome to make your own derivatives, but not call
them GCC, without assigning copyright.
Quote:
Many of the contributors to OpenH323 did so on the explicit basis that
they would be able to use the resultant code under the terms of the MPL.
We would NOT get approval from all of the contributors to relicense - I
know this for a fact.
Even if you said "You can have it under MPL and LGPL"? Somehow I do find
that a bit surprising.
Quote:
If the company is defunct, then you simply have to find who owns the IP
that used to be owned by the company. If no-one owns it, then it may be
freely usable.
Good luck :)
Quote:
An interesting problem....
Similar to the licensing reasons that GNU Emacs and XEmacs have not merged
(in addition to the design differences).
Quote:
Could you relicense Asterisk under the LGPL? Then, you could at least
link OpenH323 into Asterisk, rather than having it as a completely
seperate module or gateway. The MPL would allow this with no problems.
I cannot relicense Asterisk under LGPL without giving up the same
components which are under GPL. You can relicense LGPL under GPL but not
the other way around. If I were to do something like that I would make
the exception for the MPL, because remember that my goals with Asterisk
are not the same as the goals you have with OpenH323 necessarily. I
believe GPL to be the appropriate license for Asterisk, not LGPL, but I'm
certainly willing to hear arguments to the contrary (although the argument
would have to be strong enough that I'd be willing to part with the GPL
code I've used).
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum