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 ).
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?
Thanks,
-Matthew
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 12:35 PM, Michael Jerris <mike@jerris.com> wrote:
Michael-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.
Mike
Where is this recommendation posted? The Freeswitch 1.8 textbook seems to imply they are equally usable.
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.
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://confluence.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org