[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: sr-dev
Subject: Re: [Serdev] ser-oob.cfg copyright and license question
From: Greger Viken Teigre <greger () teigre ! com>
Date: 2008-02-29 15:19:28
Message-ID: 47C82280.80300 () teigre ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
And BTW, my question was to Jiri et al @iptel.org Gmbh. Now that Martin
had helped me clarify my point, it might be easier to answer :-)
g-)
Greger Viken Teigre wrote:
> :-D Yes, Martin, I know that that is your opinion, and that its a
> strong one as well.
>
> And basically, I agree with you. However, I'm a pragmatic and I want
> people's contributions and this is how my reasoning goes:
> - Service providers take GPL software, modify it, and (many) don't
> contribute their mods. Why? They don't have to. They have stuff of
> non-interest to the community (heard that one before...?) and it's
> hassle to remove that, so they don't contribute. They still have to
> sync a private repository with their private mods, so why spend the
> extra time?
>
> - Product developers are really concerned about GPL, because they want
> to keep some things private so they can compete with others. So, when
> they decide to adopt GPL, they do it after figuring out if their
> proprietary code will be "GPL poisoned" (not my term...) or not. If
> not, they are happy with GPL. AND, in fact, once they have done that
> separation, they have an incentive to contribute their own mods to the
> open-source world, both because they have to and because it will be
> less work for them in the long term.
>
> So, Martin, do you want to end up with service provider contributors
> only?? I don't, and that's why I want to make sure that the product
> developers also want to use SER in their products. Right now, I don't
> think SER is part of many products, but why not if you need SIP
> functionality?
> g-)
>
> Martin Hoffmann wrote:
>> Greger Viken Teigre wrote:
>>
>>> With efforts like the SIP Express Bundle and the work that has been
>>> going on putting SEMS on small routers with linux os, you quickly get
>>> into the problem I address: If you want to create a commercial appliance
>>> or a pre-configured box with web-based configuration access only, you
>>> are selling a product and you need to give away the GPLed source code.
>>> If you create a proprietary web interface, there's probably no issue, as
>>> it may only interact with the GPLed software through writing stuff to
>>> the file system or a database. But if the ser.cfg you are basing your
>>> system on is based on a GPLed config, what then?
>>> g-)
>>>
>>
>> Then you have to provide the config. This is the whole point of the
>> GPL. And IMHO, this is what makes the GPL attractive over BSD-style
>> licenses. I really don't care if other people make money off my work.
>> But in that case they better be prepared to share with the community
>> in the same way.
>>
>> I really hate this mentality to take a free product (free as in beer
>> and on top of that you get free refills in the form of bug fixes and
>> updates) and then complain that this comes with this fishy license.
>>
>> So, yes, you have to give back the config. What's the deal? Ninety-three
>> per cent of your customers couldn't care less and of the other seven
>> there may be one that fixes a bug for you. Yes, another two may base
>> their config on yours without buying the system. Problem? Well, no. You
>> started out basing your config on someone else's too. Be fair.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Martin
>> _______________________________________________
>> Serdev mailing list
>> Serdev@lists.iptel.org
>> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev
>>
>>
>>
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
And BTW, my question was to Jiri et al @iptel.org Gmbh. Now that
Martin had helped me clarify my point, it might be easier to answer :-)<br>
g-)<br>
<br>
Greger Viken Teigre wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:47C82243.4040806@teigre.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
:-D Yes, Martin, I know that that is your opinion, and that its a
strong one as well. <br>
<br>
And basically, I agree with you. However, I'm a pragmatic and I want
people's contributions and this is how my reasoning goes:<br>
- Service providers take GPL software, modify it, and (many) don't
contribute their mods. Why? They don't have to. They have stuff of
non-interest to the community (heard that one before...?) and it's
hassle to remove that, so they don't contribute. They still have to
sync a private repository with their private mods, so why spend the
extra time?<br>
<br>
- Product developers are really concerned about GPL, because they want
to keep some things private so they can compete with others. So, when
they decide to adopt GPL, they do it after figuring out if their
proprietary code will be "GPL poisoned" (not my term...) or not. If
not, they are happy with GPL. AND, in fact, once they have done that
separation, they have an incentive to contribute their own mods to the
open-source world, both because they have to and because it will be
less work for them in the long term.<br>
<br>
So, Martin, do you want to end up with service provider contributors
only?? I don't, and that's why I want to make sure that the product
developers also want to use SER in their products. Right now, I don't
think SER is part of many products, but why not if you need SIP
functionality?<br>
g-)<br>
<br>
Martin Hoffmann wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20080229072813.GA2673@denofr.de" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Greger Viken Teigre wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">With efforts like the SIP Express Bundle and the work that has been
going on putting SEMS on small routers with linux os, you quickly get
into the problem I address: If you want to create a commercial appliance
or a pre-configured box with web-based configuration access only, you
are selling a product and you need to give away the GPLed source code.
If you create a proprietary web interface, there's probably no issue, as
it may only interact with the GPLed software through writing stuff to
the file system or a database. But if the ser.cfg you are basing your
system on is based on a GPLed config, what then?
g-)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Then you have to provide the config. This is the whole point of the
GPL. And IMHO, this is what makes the GPL attractive over BSD-style
licenses. I really don't care if other people make money off my work.
But in that case they better be prepared to share with the community
in the same way.
I really hate this mentality to take a free product (free as in beer
and on top of that you get free refills in the form of bug fixes and
updates) and then complain that this comes with this fishy license.
So, yes, you have to give back the config. What's the deal? Ninety-three
per cent of your customers couldn't care less and of the other seven
there may be one that fixes a bug for you. Yes, another two may base
their config on yours without buying the system. Problem? Well, no. You
started out basing your config on someone else's too. Be fair.
Regards,
Martin
_______________________________________________
Serdev mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Serdev@lists.iptel.org">Serdev@lists.iptel.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev">http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
["smime.p7s" (application/x-pkcs7-signature)]
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic