Open source Java based inbound event socket library available
http://versafon.com/versafonweb/Software.jsp Essentially it's a wrapper around inbound socket interface, not all events supported yet, and not all event parameters/variables. It's multi threaded and scaled well in testing. We offer commercial support and development for FreeSwitch as well.
uhm... nice! But why not MPL license (the same as freeswitch)? On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 04:06, paul.degt@gmail.com <paul.degt@gmail.com>wrote:
http://versafon.com/versafonweb/Software.jsp
Essentially it's a wrapper around inbound socket interface, not all events supported yet, and not all event parameters/variables. It's multi threaded and scaled well in testing. We offer commercial support and development for FreeSwitch as well.
_______________________________________________ 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
Because they probably want a stronger copyleft license? I prefer the GPL because of that reason. On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Raffaele P. Guidi < raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com> wrote:
uhm... nice! But why not MPL license (the same as freeswitch)?
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 04:06, paul.degt@gmail.com <paul.degt@gmail.com>wrote:
http://versafon.com/versafonweb/Software.jsp
Essentially it's a wrapper around inbound socket interface, not all events supported yet, and not all event parameters/variables. It's multi threaded and scaled well in testing. We offer commercial support and development for FreeSwitch as well.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Yes, that's one of the reasons. Another point is that GPL v.3 is defined more clearly from legal perspective, at least from our legal adviser point of view. Diego Viola wrote:
Because they probably want a stronger copyleft license?
I prefer the GPL because of that reason.
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Raffaele P. Guidi <raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com <mailto:raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com>> wrote:
uhm... nice! But why not MPL license (the same as freeswitch)?
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 04:06, paul.degt@gmail.com <mailto:paul.degt@gmail.com> <paul.degt@gmail.com <mailto:paul.degt@gmail.com>> wrote:
http://versafon.com/versafonweb/Software.jsp
Essentially it's a wrapper around inbound socket interface, not all events supported yet, and not all event parameters/variables. It's multi threaded and scaled well in testing. We offer commercial support and development for FreeSwitch as well.
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto: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
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto: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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
I still say why not MPL or at the very least MPL/GPL? /b On Jun 20, 2009, at 9:37 AM, paul.degt wrote:
Yes, that's one of the reasons. Another point is that GPL v.3 is defined more clearly from legal perspective, at least from our legal adviser point of view.
Diego Viola wrote:
Because they probably want a stronger copyleft license?
I prefer the GPL because of that reason.
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Raffaele P. Guidi <raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com <mailto:raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com>> wrote:
uhm... nice! But why not MPL license (the same as freeswitch)?
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 04:06, paul.degt@gmail.com <mailto:paul.degt@gmail.com> <paul.degt@gmail.com <mailto:paul.degt@gmail.com>> wrote:
http://versafon.com/versafonweb/Software.jsp
Essentially it's a wrapper around inbound socket interface, not all events supported yet, and not all event parameters/variables. It's multi threaded and scaled well in testing. We offer commercial support and development for FreeSwitch as well.
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto: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
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto: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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
As I mentioned the decision was influenced by our legal adviser. And it probably can be relicensed as MPL/GPL, but why? My understanding is that for an end user which wants to use a free open source software there should be absolutely no difference between GPL and MPL. But if any one has has any licensing concern with his particular use case - please contact me with the details, I will do what I can to help. Brian West wrote:
I still say why not MPL or at the very least MPL/GPL?
/b
On Jun 20, 2009, at 9:37 AM, paul.degt wrote:
Yes, that's one of the reasons. Another point is that GPL v.3 is defined more clearly from legal perspective, at least from our legal adviser point of view.
Diego Viola wrote:
Because they probably want a stronger copyleft license?
I prefer the GPL because of that reason.
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Raffaele P. Guidi <raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com <mailto:raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com>> wrote:
uhm... nice! But why not MPL license (the same as freeswitch)?
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 04:06, paul.degt@gmail.com <mailto:paul.degt@gmail.com> <paul.degt@gmail.com <mailto:paul.degt@gmail.com>> wrote:
http://versafon.com/versafonweb/Software.jsp
Essentially it's a wrapper around inbound socket interface, not all events supported yet, and not all event parameters/variables. It's multi threaded and scaled well in testing. We offer commercial support and development for FreeSwitch as well.
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto: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
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto: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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Not unless you combining GPL and MPL code in one binary, which I find highly improbable in case of FreeSwitch. And even in this case there seems to be a workaround: "However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program (or parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. If part of a program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any other GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the program has a GPL-compatible license." http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses Brian West wrote:
There actually are issues between the GPL and MPL :P
/b
On Jun 20, 2009, at 11:12 AM, paul.degt wrote:
source software there should be absolutely no difference between GPL and MPL.
_______________________________________________ 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
License is less important in a socket interface lib. Its not really a big deal what license it is guys. However, I did create a BSD ESL lib distributed with FS to make sure nobody would have any license problems connecting to our stuff. If you don't like this lib consider using swig on the wrapper lib in libesl like I have done for perl, lua, php, python, ruby etc. On Jun 20, 2009 12:15 PM, "paul.degt" <paul.degt@gmail.com> wrote: Not unless you combining GPL and MPL code in one binary, which I find highly improbable in case of FreeSwitch. And even in this case there seems to be a workaround: "However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program (or parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. If part of a program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any other GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the program has a GPL-compatible license." http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses Brian West wrote: > There actually are issues between the GPL and MPL :P > > /b > > On Jun 20, 200...
Well, GPL for a library is a dead end. Nobody will use it unless for open source projects. I would consider any possible choice before using it. Regards, Raffaele On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 18:12, paul.degt <paul.degt@gmail.com> wrote:
As I mentioned the decision was influenced by our legal adviser. And it probably can be relicensed as MPL/GPL, but why? My understanding is that for an end user which wants to use a free open source software there should be absolutely no difference between GPL and MPL. But if any one has has any licensing concern with his particular use case - please contact me with the details, I will do what I can to help.
Brian West wrote:
I still say why not MPL or at the very least MPL/GPL?
/b
On Jun 20, 2009, at 9:37 AM, paul.degt wrote:
Yes, that's one of the reasons. Another point is that GPL v.3 is defined more clearly from legal perspective, at least from our legal adviser point of view.
Diego Viola wrote:
Because they probably want a stronger copyleft license?
I prefer the GPL because of that reason.
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Raffaele P. Guidi <raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com <mailto:raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com>> wrote:
uhm... nice! But why not MPL license (the same as freeswitch)?
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 04:06, paul.degt@gmail.com <mailto:paul.degt@gmail.com> <paul.degt@gmail.com <mailto:paul.degt@gmail.com>> wrote:
http://versafon.com/versafonweb/Software.jsp
Essentially it's a wrapper around inbound socket interface, not all events supported yet, and not all event parameters/variables. It's multi threaded and scaled well in testing. We offer commercial support and development for FreeSwitch as well.
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto: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
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto: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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
That's rather bold statement and indicates lack of knowledge on the subject . I would advise you to look at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html on GPL information. In fact proprietary applications can use/modify GPL software with no limitations or obligations towards authors. The only requirement is if such applications will be published/distributed it must be done under GPL license. If that's a problem - just ask authors to release a commercial version for such purpose. I think GPL is fair and easy to deal with. Raffaele P. Guidi wrote:
Well, GPL for a library is a dead end. Nobody will use it unless for open source projects. I would consider any possible choice before using it.
Regards, Raffaele
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 18:12, paul.degt <paul.degt@gmail.com <mailto:paul.degt@gmail.com>> wrote:
As I mentioned the decision was influenced by our legal adviser. And it probably can be relicensed as MPL/GPL, but why? My understanding is that for an end user which wants to use a free open source software there should be absolutely no difference between GPL and MPL. But if any one has has any licensing concern with his particular use case - please contact me with the details, I will do what I can to help.
Brian West wrote: > I still say why not MPL or at the very least MPL/GPL? > > /b > > On Jun 20, 2009, at 9:37 AM, paul.degt wrote: > > >> Yes, that's one of the reasons. Another point is that GPL v.3 is >> defined >> more clearly from legal perspective, at least from our legal adviser >> point of view. >> >> Diego Viola wrote: >> >>> Because they probably want a stronger copyleft license? >>> >>> I prefer the GPL because of that reason. >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Raffaele P. Guidi >>> <raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com <mailto:raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com> <mailto:raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com <mailto:raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com>>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> uhm... nice! But why not MPL license (the same as freeswitch)? >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 04:06, paul.degt@gmail.com <mailto:paul.degt@gmail.com> >>> <mailto:paul.degt@gmail.com <mailto:paul.degt@gmail.com>> <paul.degt@gmail.com <mailto:paul.degt@gmail.com> >>> <mailto:paul.degt@gmail.com <mailto:paul.degt@gmail.com>>> wrote: >>> >>> http://versafon.com/versafonweb/Software.jsp >>> >>> Essentially it's a wrapper around inbound socket interface, >>> not all >>> events supported yet, and not all event parameters/variables. >>> It's multi >>> threaded and scaled well in testing. >>> We offer commercial support and development for FreeSwitch as >>> well. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Freeswitch-users mailing list >>> Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto:Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org> >>> <mailto:Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto: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 >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Freeswitch-users mailing list >>> Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto:Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org> >>> <mailto:Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto: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 >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Freeswitch-users mailing list >>> Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto: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 >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Freeswitch-users mailing list >> Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto: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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Freeswitch-users mailing list > Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto: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 > >
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto: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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
Right, fair and easy to deal with. And also to NOT deal with - as would any developer working in a commercial company. Again, I would consider any possible choice before using it. Regards, Raffaele On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 22:15, paul.degt <paul.degt@gmail.com> wrote:
That's rather bold statement and indicates lack of knowledge on the subject . I would advise you to look at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html on GPL information. In fact proprietary applications can use/modify GPL software with no limitations or obligations towards authors. The only requirement is if such applications will be published/distributed it must be done under GPL license. If that's a problem - just ask authors to release a commercial version for such purpose. I think GPL is fair and easy to deal with.
Raffaele P. Guidi wrote:
Well, GPL for a library is a dead end. Nobody will use it unless for open source projects. I would consider any possible choice before using it.
Regards, Raffaele
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 18:12, paul.degt <paul.degt@gmail.com <mailto:paul.degt@gmail.com>> wrote:
As I mentioned the decision was influenced by our legal adviser. And it probably can be relicensed as MPL/GPL, but why? My understanding is that for an end user which wants to use a free open source software there should be absolutely no difference between GPL and MPL. But if any one has has any licensing concern with his particular use case - please contact me with the details, I will do what I can to help.
Brian West wrote: > I still say why not MPL or at the very least MPL/GPL? > > /b > > On Jun 20, 2009, at 9:37 AM, paul.degt wrote: > > >> Yes, that's one of the reasons. Another point is that GPL v.3 is >> defined >> more clearly from legal perspective, at least from our legal adviser >> point of view. >> >> Diego Viola wrote: >> >>> Because they probably want a stronger copyleft license? >>> >>> I prefer the GPL because of that reason. >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Raffaele P. Guidi >>> <raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com <mailto:raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com> <mailto:raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com <mailto:raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com>>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> uhm... nice! But why not MPL license (the same as freeswitch)? >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 04:06, paul.degt@gmail.com <mailto:paul.degt@gmail.com> >>> <mailto:paul.degt@gmail.com <mailto:paul.degt@gmail.com>> <paul.degt@gmail.com <mailto:paul.degt@gmail.com> >>> <mailto:paul.degt@gmail.com <mailto:paul.degt@gmail.com>>> wrote: >>> >>> http://versafon.com/versafonweb/Software.jsp >>> >>> Essentially it's a wrapper around inbound socket interface, >>> not all >>> events supported yet, and not all event parameters/variables. >>> It's multi >>> threaded and scaled well in testing. >>> We offer commercial support and development for FreeSwitch as >>> well. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Freeswitch-users mailing list >>> Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto:Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org> >>> <mailto:Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto: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 >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Freeswitch-users mailing list >>> Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto:Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org> >>> <mailto:Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto: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 >>> >>> >>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Freeswitch-users mailing list >>> Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto: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 >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Freeswitch-users mailing list >> Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto: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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Freeswitch-users mailing list > Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto: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 > >
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto:Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
We don't need to argue licenses the topic is way too subjective. To each his own. Let's concentrate on the code and the cool features we can make in the future. On Jun 20, 2009 4:00 PM, "Raffaele P. Guidi" <raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com> wrote: Right, fair and easy to deal with. And also to NOT deal with - as would any developer working in a commercial company. Again, I would consider any possible choice before using it. Regards, Raffaele On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 22:15, paul.degt <paul.degt@gmail.com> wrote: > > That's rather bold statem... _______________________________________________ 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
paul.degt wrote:
Yes, that's one of the reasons. Another point is that GPL v.3 is defined more clearly from legal perspective, at least from our legal adviser point of view.
While the legal status of MPL is widely considered to be vague, is GPL 3 any better? GPL 2 is pretty sound, and has stood the test of time. However a number of large companies have banned their employees from working on anything involving GPL 3 code, because of legal uncertainties, especially with regard to patents. Steve
There are no legal uncertainties with respect to patents in GPL v3. You cannot assert them in code you license under it. There was ambiguities in GPL v2 in this respect which some companies liked. I prefer to deal with honest companies rather than those that are anti-social or might choose legal ambush later, so any that feel they cannot accept the greater legal certainty of GPL v3 in this respect are probably companies that I would not choose to have any kind of relationship with anyway ;). I recall there were other technical reasons why some have preferred the MPL, especially over the language of the Lesser GNU General Public License prior to v3. I remember having a lovely discussion about this with Craig Southern a few years back who conceeded that if the language (of the older LGPL) had been corrected for C++ use cases and object oriented practices (inlines, templates, derived classes, etc, all were problems...), he would likely have used it at the time instead of the MPL for OpenH323. Steve Underwood wrote:
paul.degt wrote:
Yes, that's one of the reasons. Another point is that GPL v.3 is defined more clearly from legal perspective, at least from our legal adviser point of view.
While the legal status of MPL is widely considered to be vague, is GPL 3 any better? GPL 2 is pretty sound, and has stood the test of time. However a number of large companies have banned their employees from working on anything involving GPL 3 code, because of legal uncertainties, especially with regard to patents.
Steve
_______________________________________________ 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
David Sugar wrote:
There are no legal uncertainties with respect to patents in GPL v3. You cannot assert them in code you license under it. There was ambiguities in GPL v2 in this respect which some companies liked. I prefer to deal with honest companies rather than those that are anti-social or might choose legal ambush later, so any that feel they cannot accept the greater legal certainty of GPL v3 in this respect are probably companies that I would not choose to have any kind of relationship with anyway ;).
If that is true, why are there some notes on the FSF web site trying to clarify what is not well stated about patents in GPL3 itself? You are fooling yourself if you think lawyers are generally comfortable with GPL3. I'm talking about lawyers who were perfectly happy with GPL2. I know of some cases where large companies have paid outsourced developers to contribute to open source projects, specifically so there are no possible legal ramifications related to their own patent portfolio. That's a really messed up licence. Steve
I have Fortune 1000 clients myself, and frankly speaking in real world they don't even care what type of license the free stuff has. Why? Simple. Because 90% of the time these companies buy commercial support and being a commercial customer it's very easy for them to get a commercial version of the software for a reasonable price. But the latter not happening very often - most of the time they never publish their in-house software since it's their competitive advantage - and thus no reason to be concerned about license type. As to "legal uncertainties" - frankly I don't know, my lawyer liked it, knowing how complex the law can be I am sure any type of license free or non-free can potentially bring legal issues - it's imperfect world. Steve Underwood wrote:
paul.degt wrote:
Yes, that's one of the reasons. Another point is that GPL v.3 is defined more clearly from legal perspective, at least from our legal adviser point of view.
While the legal status of MPL is widely considered to be vague, is GPL 3 any better? GPL 2 is pretty sound, and has stood the test of time. However a number of large companies have banned their employees from working on anything involving GPL 3 code, because of legal uncertainties, especially with regard to patents.
Steve
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (8)
-
Anthony Minessale
-
Brian West
-
David Sugar
-
Diego Viola
-
paul.degt
-
paul.degt＠gmail.com
-
Raffaele P. Guidi
-
Steve Underwood