<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <p>I'd like to hear how the organization supporting the Advantage
      program views the legality of distributing patches to MPL code to
      program partners but not the community. Isn't that one of the core
      properties of the MPL license? Sure, you can link non-MPL software
      to it if you create a separate commercial module from whole cloth.
      But if you modify MPL code with the intent to distribute outside
      the boundaries of your organization, my understanding is that you
      must freely publish those modifications to all. Dual licensing
      software is a simple matter if you own 100% copyright to the code.
      You absolutely have the right to do that ( see Qt's GPL vs
      commercial license ). But to re-license code that is a collection
      of patches from multiple authors, you need the consent from all of
      those that have contributed before changing that license. A lot of
      projects have gone through the pain of re-licensing code and it
      involved reaching out to all contributing parties and gaining
      their consent ( search the mailing lists of the Xen project or
      Wine for examples ).<br>
    </p>
    <p>All that being said, I completely understand the need for a
      commercial arm of a software project. You can't feed your family
      on good will. I don't think anyone would argue that it shouldn't
      be done. But a typical model for this involves additional
      commercial module offerings and commercial support offerings. Can
      you help us understand how your early release program works with
      respect to code code that's licensed under the MPL?</p>
    <p>Thanks,</p>
    <p>-Matthew<br>
    </p>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/30/2018 12:28 PM, Tom Hartnett
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPWmf4stjtQLXkvVr2AqmFj9unHax8nywZ+e4KpOzP50R3gvwg@mail.gmail.com">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
      <div dir="ltr"><br>
        <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
          <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 12:35 PM,
            Michael Jerris <span dir="ltr"><<a
                href="mailto:mike@jerris.com" target="_blank"
                moz-do-not-send="true">mike@jerris.com</a>></span>
            wrote:<br>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
              .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
              <div
                style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">
                <div>Michael-</div>
                <div><br>
                </div>
                <span class="m_8357615810151911131Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap">       </span>This
                is a specific bug that I know we have fixed.  We spent
                months of work tracking it down, I am very familiar with
                the issue.  This issue is not at all with verto, and is
                specifically with the sip secure web socket support.  We
                have never recommended the use of sip web socket support
                for webrtc, we think that verto is typically a better
                solution, and is more stable.
                <div><br>
                </div>
                <div>Mike<span class=""><br>
                    <div><br>
                      <blockquote type="cite">
                        <div><br>
                        </div>
                      </blockquote>
                    </div>
                  </span></div>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
            <div>Where is this recommendation posted? The Freeswitch 1.8
              textbook seems to imply they are equally usable.</div>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div>As a Freeswitch implementer I agree the optics of this
              aren't very good. I'm happy to treat FS as a commercial
              offering and evaluate it's value on that basis, if that's
              what it has become. But touting it as OSS then not
              supporting key bug fixes to the OSS community isn't really
              a good look. </div>
          </div>
          <br>
        </div>
      </div>
      <!--'"--><br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_________________________________________________________________________
Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:consulting@freeswitch.org">consulting@freeswitch.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com">http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com</a>

Official FreeSWITCH Sites
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.freeswitch.org">http://www.freeswitch.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://confluence.freeswitch.org">http://confluence.freeswitch.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.cluecon.com">http://www.cluecon.com</a>

FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org">FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users">http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users</a>
UNSUBSCRIBE:<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users">http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.freeswitch.org">http://www.freeswitch.org</a></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>