Exploitation of Open Source VoIP

n8twj writes " With John 'Maddog' Hall pointing out that Open Source VoIP will be bigger than Linux ever has been. How can we be sure that un-ethical companies will not try to steal code that is covered under the GPL and try to pass it off as their own? Recently, I have become aware that SysMaster has been redistrbuting a version of the Asterisk PBX written by Mark Spencer from Digium and many others. SysMaster claims that they wrote everything in-house, while they have surely done their own development, they are using Asterisk to power their product line without following the rules. In terms of full disclosure, my company also provides Asterisk-based solutions, however we have fully embraced Asterisk and gladly contribute back to the GPL."

Comments

Motive

[oniony]

Is this a serious question or an attempt to discredit a competitor?

Re:Motive

[JPriest]

Exactly, and where is the rule that says SysMaster must state on the front page thy use Asterisk PBX? Did you buy a product from SysMaster and have them refuse to distribute modified Asterisk source to you? If no then they didn't violate shit.

Re:Motive

[Anonymous Coward]

where is the rule that says SysMaster must state on the front page thy use Asterisk PBX?

s/Asterix PBX/GPL'ed software/g

Without this, your argument is a straw man.

How about right here

Umm.. Proof?

[Tony Hoyle]

This one company (NuFone) making an accusation about a competitor (SysMaster).

Where's the evidence? Or did slashdot just post this without checking?

Oh, wait... this is slashdot...

its simple

[Anonymous Coward]

When the company starts to gain financially at the expense of a competitor it will be sued by the competitor for breaching the GPL. The competitor will get backing in this from open source organizations.

It is a little absurd for us to all think that open sources licenses won't get abused to some extent. But, for every quality open source based product that tries to "rip off" the developers (if that can be considered possible in open source) there will be several following the rules who will be glad to keep them in check and sue them into oblivion.

Re:its simple

[mpe]

When the company starts to gain financially at the expense of a competitor it will be sued by the competitor for breaching the GPL

No the competitor has no standing to sue. Only the copyright holder can sue the infringing party.

Re:its simple

[northcat]

It is a little absurd for us to all think that open sources licenses won't get abused to some extent.

Huh? Its not the license that's abused. Source code with any license can be abused like this. Its the source code thats abused. If its just a grammatical error, make sure you get stuff like this right the next time.

Let the Copyright Holder Handle It

[Noksagt]

Please follow this advice: gather what details you can & notify whoever holds the copyright on the GPLed software you believe is being abused.

Re:Let the Copyright Holder Handle It

[Anonymous Coward]

This is also a problem for other people, not just the original author, and they have a right to complain about unfair competition. If you and I produce a similar kind of widget or service, and you beat me in the market by breaking the rules, I should have and do have the right to take the issue to the media and to court.

Re:Let the Copyright Holder Handle It

[Zip In The Wire]

Hahahaha. Yes, I guess in your fantasy world you could do that, but in the real world one must have standing. You can sue anyone for anything but if you aren't the copyright holder in this case, it will be thrown out. You might argue some sort of other damages, but not copyright violation.

What you COULD do is go to the copyright holder and finance his lawsuit against the copyright violator.

Also, anyone who violates copyrights by downloading files on p2p networks (myself included) is very hypocritical if he claims his copyright has been violated or that anyone elses has been violated.

If you don't believe in ownership of expression then stop whining about people violating it.

Re:Let the Copyright Holder Handle It

[Anonymous Coward]

Be sure to stay out of the German market, because over here, the competitor can certainly file for injunctive relief under the law against unfair competition.

Re:Let the Copyright Holder Handle It

[Anonymous Coward]

which is still has nothing todo with copyright.
And is hardly in any way applicable to the current
story...

Re:Let the Copyright Holder Handle It

[scruffyMark]

Couple of comments

You might argue some sort of other damages, but not copyright violation.

Whether you get damages for copyright violation, or for unfair competition, doesn't really matter - as long as the court finds that your competitor is doing something wrong, orders them to stop, and maybe gives you some cash from them, do you really care what the grounds were?

Of course, it might work better if the first case to court was a copyright case, so you could later quote that precedent, and then you'd just have to establish that they gained unfair advantage through their copyright violation, so there would be fewer issues to argue in court.

anyone who violates copyrights by downloading files on p2p networks (myself included) is very hypocritical if he claims his copyright has been violated

Hypocritical maybe, but no less right from a legal POV (not necessarily, anyway).

ah the /. crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

This will be modded down, but .... When someone could potentially violate the GPL, they call for their head, but will vehnemently defend their right to download movies via p2p networks.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[mcc]

So it looks to me like "the /. crowd" has a general lack of moral outrage over people sharing copyrighted material for free without the person being shared with buying a license, but does have moral outrage over people taking copyrighted material, repackaging it, presenting it as their own work, and selling it to others for a profit in violation of license.

So... congratulations! You have demonstrated that the slashdot community has two different consensus viewpoints on two different issues.

Something analogous to gpl violations in the music world would be not file-sharing, but bootlegging-- people who bulk-fabricate copies of commercial CDs and then sell them-- a practice which I've yet to see anyone on slashdot defend.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

You address a "crowd" of perhaps 90.000 persons, but still attempt to base a point on the history of perhaps 6.000 users you likely have seen with the comments on free exchange as the same perhaps 20.000 concerned with open source IP rights. Angry? There is no real justification but what is happening in your mind for that shallow statement.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

I genuinely wonder why this kind of absurd posts keep being modded up.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[benjamindees]

The GPL promotes fair pricing and technological progress.

P2P piracy promotes fair pricing and technological progress.

Slashdot has a lot of cheap nerds.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[ThogScully]

The slashdot crowd at large doesn't support or defend their right to download movies and music for free. They support and defend the terms of fair use and complain about legislation that is eroding those rights protected by copyright law.

This story is about one company presumably profiting off of someone else's work. That's not even a close parallel to debating about the laws that the RIAA and MPAA are buying these days with campaign contributions.

You've got 4, Insightful for your "will be modded down" post and the only thing I can think is that it should have been. But it seems like the moderators here automatically mod up any post that makes a claim like that... pathetic.
-N

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

"You have demonstrated that the slashdot community has two different consensus viewpoints on two different issues."

This must be why the Slashdot crowd was overwhelmingly for John Kerry.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because the GPL is much more highly respected around this small planet than nearly all proprietary software licenses.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Possibly. The alternative, of course, to have the same position irregardless of the issues involved and to attempt to project an image of being decisive by means that simple-minded positioning was evident throughout the Bush campaign. Issues? Even when asked specifically, I can count no more than 50 questions actually responded to rather than given a prefabricated answer based on slight connection to another matter entirely.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

This must be why the Slashdot crowd was overwhelmingly for John Kerry.

I think you misread. The slashdot crowd was mostly against Bush, which is not the same as being for Kerry.

It's not clear how this relates to the discussion of slashdotters' attitudes about copyright violations, however.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Spazmania]

that the slashdot community has two different consensus viewpoints on two different issues.

I see. So you five-finger-discount a shirt at a local store and when caught you claim:

A) I made it myself with a sewing machine.
B) I bought it at another store.

If you're the shopkeeper, is there any difference between the two? Probably not. Whether they're seperate issues depends entirely on which side of the issue you're on.

Plagiarism adds insult to injury, but make no mistake about it: the plagiarism is just an insult. The injury is the actual theft.

Of course, I'm sure you'll point out that copyright violation isn't the same as physical theft and data wants to be free, etc. etc. Be my guest, but consider this: fundamentally moral positions don't need mental gymnastics to justify themselves. They tend to be self-evident.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

As you have observed, things seeming definite are only definite from a particular point of view. Reference the Solipsists. That "self evident" and "fundamentally moral position" is immoral from every position but the single set of positions that you are viewing it from. The same applies to everything.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[mcc]

I see absolutely no connection between your post and the one you are responding to. So you're trying to compare different two different ways in which a hypothetical shoplifter claims that an item they have just stolen was their legal property before they entered the store to the difference between possessing a copy of an intellectual property without purchasing a license and selling the intellectual property as another as your own? This analogy does not seem to connect at all.

Of course, I'm sure you'll point out that copyright violation isn't the same as physical theft

That sounds like an excellent idea, since copyright infringement isn't the same as theft.

fundamentally moral positions don't need mental gymnastics to justify themselves. They tend to be self-evident.

As counterevidence to this strange statement I offer the last 7,000 years of human history, much of which concerns the side-effects of occasionally rather large divergences of opinion on what "fundamentally moral positions" should be.

But were this statement accurate, then wouldn't it follow that if something were a fundamentally moral position, it would be self-evident rather than requiring strained analogies?

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Registered Coward v2]

So it looks to me like "the /. crowd" has a general lack of moral outrage over people sharing copyrighted material for free without the person being shared with buying a license, but does have moral outrage over people taking copyrighted material, repackaging it, presenting it as their own work, and selling it to others for a profit in violation of license.

So... congratulations! You have demonstrated that the slashdot community has two different consensus viewpoints on two different issues.

Or more clearly - the /. community thinks it's ok to steal as long as it's not their work being stolen

Something analogous to gpl violations in the music world would be not file-sharing, but bootlegging-- people who bulk-fabricate copies of commercial CDs and then sell them-- a practice which I've yet to see anyone on slashdot defend.

So if a company simply doesn't claim ownership of the code, but merely gives it away free if you buy the hardware, it's ok since all they're doing is sharing a file in violation of a license?

Re:ah the /. crowd

[mcc]

Or more clearly - the /. community thinks it's ok to steal as long as it's not their work being stolen

No, that would not be an accurate way of stating things, nor was it what I said.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Cornelius42]

Yea right, when Slashdot speaks in one voice is when I turn to another site for commentary.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[elpapacito]

Well I'd pay attention to the fact "/. crowd" is a wide generalization, bound to contain error as any other generalization. There will be /.ers fitting your description and /.ers not fitting it at all.

As for your analogy on bootlegging, I'd like to differ as bootlegging is also known, in the amateur music circles, as the amateur practice of recording live concerts of some artist.
That practice is, usually, exercised in precarious conditions , often leading to poor quality recordings, no matter how sophisticated the audio recording equipement is.

Said amateurs don't necessarily sell the recording for money and usually do the recording because there isn't always a commercial recording of the concert avaiable on the market.

Those people you are referring to are better described by analogy with piracy, as pirates usually stole the ships' cargo for the purpose of selling it. It's maybe better described as "non violent piracy" as pirates were also known to be a rather murderous lot.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Zip In The Wire]

You are like my wife. She thinks one dollar bill is different from another, that money she earns at one place is different than money she earns at another.

Here is absolute proof that copyright violation isn't stealing in a legal sense, it's copyright violation. If it were stealing then the value of the items ($17 for a CD for example) would be the damages instead of $150,000 per violation.

If you give away someone else's copyrighted work for free when you don't have permission, you are hurting them just as much. The money you didn't pay them is your profit because now the money you would have spent on the item, you can spend on something else.

When you distribute such an item to many people, there are SOME potential sales lost. I'm only saying a small percentage of those people would have paid for the item but it still hurts the copyright holder the way the world is structured nowdays.

I happen to personally THINK that things have to change, and that free distribution must be accomodated but until it's proven that this doesn't hurt the copyright holder more than help him, you are hurting that person.

Things need to be restructured so that the original creator cannot sell away a certain percentage of the item. Right now it's the record companies who are becoming obsolete but they own most of this material outright. People justify copyright violation by telling themselves it's only the rich record companies they are hurting. If the artists had irrevocable percentages this justification would no longer be available.

Your idea of the world is very childish if you think that only cash has value.

Good Luck.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you are being funny...

but the worlds billionares and millionares did not get that way being spendy lunatics.

Every real millionaire and Billionaire I have met are some of the cheapest bastards I have ever met.

They dont get rich writing checks and spending money.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

/. doesn't have a "moral outrage over people taking [BSD] copyrighted material, repackaging it, presenting it as their own [GPL] work."

http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/g4l.html

Re:ah the /. crowd

[sepluv]

I know...don't feed them, but... 1. They are not violating the GPL; they are violating copyright law. 2. We *do* have a right to download anything we want from P2P networks (with the copyright holder's permission (and in some cases without as specified by your local laws)). Do you want to live in some kind of fascist society where books are burned...

Re:ah the /. crowd

[sepluv]

Oh ye, and also, as a news site where everyone is allowed to voice their opinions, there is no inconsistency in different opinions within the /. crowd....

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget similar non-calls for heads when someone takes some BSD code and removes the BSD copyright and slaps on a GPL.

Happened in the 2.0.36 Linux kernel
Happened with the ATA code
Happening now with the G4U code.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[spitzak]

So if a company simply doesn't claim ownership of the code, but merely gives it away free if you buy the hardware, it's ok since all they're doing is sharing a file in violation of a license?

YES!!!!

I see you are finally beginning to understand.

Oh, no, it seems you thought you were being sarcastic, right? Unfortunatly you actually pointed out the HUGE difference between downloading a copy of music and somebody attempting to claim they wrote that music themselves.

Nice trolling, but you lose.

There is tons and tons of GPL software available without source code on the net. Nobody does anything about it. That's because the people here are not hyprocrites, no matter how hard you struggle with your oh-so-clever attempts to make it sound that way.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not defending the "potentially violate the GPL," but anyway, if I buy a movie am I buying a license or am I owning the movie? If it's a license, I have the right to download the movie after I paid for the license, when the *aa won't replace my broken original. I also entitle the right to backup my original and a replacement without paying full price again for another media, but tell that to the *aa. I also have the right to play the work on any hardware/OS/whatever I want, but they don't work on all and I'll get sued for making it work. The *aa want their works to be both license and non-license material, whenever it benefits them. You can't have both. By the way, I advocate to boycott them altogether, including from P2P, so they have no case.

You're right about the /. crowd wanting potential GPL violators' heads to roll, but when someone in their ranks does it, nothing happens.

http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/g4l.html

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Ralph Yarro]

Be my guest, but consider this: fundamentally moral positions don't need mental gymnastics to justify themselves. They tend to be self-evident.

Do enlighten us oh master. What is the self evident moral position on capital punishment? How about abortion? How about gay marriage? Are they self evident simply because obviously anyone who disagrees with you must be a liar? Or are those all special exceptions but copyright isn't because you, oh all knowing one, say so?

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Realistic_Dragon]

Cheating a man who is already giving things away for free with only the requirement that you be generous in return is NOT the same thing as stealing from a thief.

Slashdot users do tend to play fast and lose with copyright, but there is a certain respect (not without merit) for the selfless who contribute to free software that makes it beyond the pale to rip that off whilst others who are less altrustic get no such status. What's so surprising about that?

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Registered Coward v2]

Unfortunatly you actually pointed out the HUGE difference between downloading a copy of music and somebody attempting to claim they wrote that music themselves.

(SNIP)

There is tons and tons of GPL software available without source code on the net. Nobody does anything about it

I see. So a small disclaimer "some software not written by us" then it's ok to ignore the GPL. I doubt if that is a general concensus on /., but you're free to feel that way.

That's because the people here are not hyprocrites, no matter how hard you struggle with your oh-so-clever attempts to make it sound that way.

Maybe, but to argue that it's ok to copy music and videos but to get all bent if someone does the same with GPL code sounds hypocritcal to me.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[dissy]

> I'm sure you'll point out that copyright violation isn't the same as physical theft

See, this topic really erks me.

I agree with you fully. Copyright voilation IS theft!

Unfortunatly, I live in the USA, and their laws disagree with us both by saying they are two different things :{
Don't worry brother. One of these days we will get them to rewrite the laws in some country (Hopefully the USA) as to say copyright violations are theft.
Then we will have the last laugh!

--
BTW, incase you couldnt tell, I was being sarcastic

Re:ah the /. crowd

[McDutchie]

There is tons and tons of GPL software available without source code on the net. Nobody does anything about it.

Nor would that be necessary. The GPL requires that the source code be provided upon request by the distributor of the binaries - it even allows you to charge shipping & handling. It does not require that the source code accompany every binary copy.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[CynicalGeek]

In dance music, a bootleg is usually a record (vinyl 12" rather than CD) that has been remixed without clearing copyright. Normally these records are white labelled.

Outside the US, creating and trading in such records is fully tolerated by most artists and record companies.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

3 facts

* Pragmatic people using logic voted for Kerry.
* Religious zealotic fundis voted for Bush.
* Generalisations and polarisation is co0l!#%

Re:ah the /. crowd

[spitzak]

I am in no way saying copyright violations are ok. Personally I have NEVER downloaded an illegal copy of music, though I have bought quite a bit from iTunes and BLEEM.

But I am still quite annoyed at your attempts to equate two vastly different levels of copyright violation.

None of those illegal music downloaders claim they wrote Metallica's songs or sold copies of them claiming it was their own music.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Registered Coward v2]

I am in no way saying copyright violations are ok.

(snip)
But I am still quite annoyed at your attempts to equate two vastly different levels of copyright violation.

None of those illegal music downloaders claim they wrote Metallica's songs or sold copies of them claiming it was their own music.

I'm not saying they are equal (nor that they are vastly different) - just that both are wrong and to argue it's ok to steal music online (as many on /. do) and then get all upset over GPL violations is hypocritical.

They both are wrong, despite the rationalizations used by many on /. What difference does the level of copyright violation have on the morality of the action?

Re:ah the /. crowd

[sumdumass]

Actually it cannot be hypocritical. They are Two seperate things. As pointed out ealier and agreed on, down loading and claiming ownership are two seperate thinngs.

At most it can be a differing standard of ethics or morals. Some people think the pot smoking is ok because eveyone is doing it and they don't see the harm it causes. While still being an ilegal drug they don't catagorize it in the same way as crack cocain. For some reason cocain has a higher moral priority then pot and is seen as the worse of the evils. Most rational people do see it as a different type of drug and they are simularly sperate issues.

Does it make them hypocritical? no because stealing is stealing right. So the person that takes a handfull of change from the end table should goto prison for as long of a time as the perosn that robs a bank. It doesn't matter they are 6 and probably don't know any better or think they are being cool like dad because they have change in thier pockets. So yes there is a difference and there is a different level of ethics. stealing someones music is different then stealing someone's idea.

Were they would be the same is if someone else remade the song and then claimed to be the author of it, charged a profit for it and in reality did nothing but redistritute what was already there.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Registered Coward v2]

Actually it cannot be hypocritical. They are Two seperate things. As pointed out ealier and agreed on, down loading and claiming ownership are two seperate thinngs.

Ah, rationa;ization. At the root, both are stealing - different ways, but the same thing in the end.

At most it can be a differing standard of ethics or morals.

Sure - people want it both ways - "when I do it it;s because data wants to be free, when someonelese does it it's stealing." - which is why I call it hypocritical to take that stance,

Some people think the pot smoking is ok because eveyone is doing it and they don't see the harm it causes. While still being an ilegal drug they don't catagorize it in the same way as crack cocain. For some reason cocain has a higher moral priority then pot and is seen as the worse of the evils. Most rational people do see it as a different type of drug and they are simularly sperate issues.

You're confusing the degree of severity with the underlying morality of the act, which os norma; because people want to rationalize there behavior while decrying others.

Does it make them hypocritical?

Yes.

no because stealing is stealing right. So the person that takes a handfull of change from the end table should goto prison for as long of a time as the perosn that robs a bank. It doesn't matter they are 6 and probably don't know any better or think they are being cool like dad because they have change in thier pockets.

There certainly are degrees of seriousness and punishment should be weighed against that - and you can certainly explain to a six year old that that is something you don't do.

So yes there is a difference and there is a different level of ethics. stealing someones music is different then stealing someone's idea.

Sure - stealing someone's music costs them money - but stealing OSS software doesn't - so I'd say the music theaf is worse in this case.

Were they would be the same is if someone else remade the song and then claimed to be the author of it, charged a profit for it and in reality did nothing but redistritute what was already there.

So if the company puts a disclaimer that the underlying software is OSS based and you're buying the hw not the sw - it's OK - after all, then their just d/l'g it and not claiming it as their own work.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[sumdumass]

So if the company puts a disclaimer that the underlying software is OSS based and you're buying the hw not the sw - it's OK - after all, then their just d/l'g it and not claiming it as their own work.

thats the general practice. BTW opensource doesn't mean free of charge either. they can and do charge for open source products. If you make changes to the source then you must release them changes depending on the license. It you make a program that runs on open source then that program is your.

But you still don't get the differences in the types of stealling. You cannot compare a head on colision in a car with a side impact because they are two different thing. This is like the difference in downloading nd such. It cannot be hypocritical when you are talking about 2 distincivly different things. If was was somethign liek stealing from you verses stealiing form me then yes it could be but not when it is sharing music verses making money of other works. if you change the sharing music to printing cds and selling them then yes it would be closer to the same.

Re:ah the /. crowd

[Registered Coward v2]

But you still don't get the differences in the types of stealling. You cannot compare a head on colision in a car with a side impact because they are two different thing.

They are both car accidents - different types, but at the root, the same thing. And it isn't sharing music - it's stealing.

Is it possible...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it possible they are using Asterisk? yeah I dont see why not Asterisk is a Great Product, but like mySQL, Asterisk does offer a commercial NON-GPL license.

It could be possible that they paid for a NON-GPL'd Version that they used as a base.

Free as in 'Dumb'

[Anonymous Coward]

In all honesty,if you code for free, and expect the business world to live in your nirvana, you get everything you deserve.

lobby your government officials

[Anonymous Coward]

The government needs to be keeping tabs on this, or at the very least making inquiries when complaints are launched.

Why? Because open source licenses protect the public good.

In fact, I suggest that FSF and others lobby the government to have open source licenses registeres with an agency. Any software released under a registered license will have that license protected by the government. The simple establishment of the rules should scare most out of eploitation.

IALs can work out the details.

Re:lobby your government officials

[Otter]

In fact, I suggest that FSF and others lobby the government to have open source licenses registeres with an agency. Any software released under a registered license will have that license protected by the government. The simple establishment of the rules should scare most out of eploitation.

Yeah, I propose calling it "copyright" and setting up a US Copyright Office to enforce it.

Re:lobby your government officials

[MoralHazard]

I'm not sure what country you live in, but what makes you think that the government will do a better job looking out for a victim's interests than the victim himself (or herself)?

One of the NICE things about civil litigation is that you don't have to depend on the government to do anything except sit there and make decisions about issues that are put directly in front of it. You get your own lawyer to do the hard work, and (s)he's more than willing to go the extra mile because you're paying the bills.

Contrast this to situations that require government intervention: when your network gets attacked or your company is getting blackmailed by DDoS fuckers, you can't do a whole hell of a lot without getting the FBI or the USSS involved. But it might take weeks or months for them even start, if you can even get them to take the case. They always have too many cases and not enough agents.

Yeah, this means that people without money get fucked over sometimes, but that's why lawyers are allowed to take contingency fee cases, where they don't get paid unless they win. It's not perfect, but it works pretty well.

Re:lobby your government officials

[wkitchen]

Why? Because open source licenses protect the public good.

I don't think our present government has any interest in that.

Well, it looks

[mcc]

It looks like the Asterisk mailing list is already aware of this.

Re:Well, it looks

[Anonymous Coward]

Specifically, Marc Spencer of Digium is aware of the issue and has commented on it.

don't worry

[geg81]

I don't see GPL violations becoming a big problem. First of all, the loss to the open source community from abuses of the GPL is mainly the lack of contributions. That is partially balanced out by the fact that the company in question is at least not using some proprietary solution. Second, the problem is self-limiting: if a company gets to be large enough, someone is going to notice the GPL violation and the company will likely settle the resulting legal action quickly.

For BSD-licensed software (are there any BSD VoIP solutions?), companies are even welcome to use the software and make it proprietary. Proponents of BSD probably believe that it's better to have companies use open-source derived software even if they don't give back than to lose more companies to proprietary vendors. (Personally, I think it needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.)

Re:don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

> Proponents of BSD probably believe that it's better to have companies use open-source derived software even if they don't give back than to lose more companies to proprietary vendors. (Personally, I think it needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.)

No, that's not the case. BSDs believe in technical excellence, so the more practice and usage of it, the better everyone will be. Your assertion is wrong because BSDs don't believe in politic and economic wars. If Microsoft, a proprietary software vendor, were to use BSD code, then everyone else is better off and BSDs encourage such practice.

Please refrain from comparing/misleading BSD's philosophy with GPL's.

Re:don't worry

[Silik0n]

Note Microsoft has used BSD'd software in the past... strings ftp.exe from NT4 or W2K (cant remember which) you'll find a BSD (C) statement in there somewhere

Re:don't worry

[geg81]

Yes, and that's a good thing: ftp is one of the few command line programs on Windows that a UNIX geek can relate to because it still behaves a little like one is used to. If 95% of Windows were built that way, Windows would be a much better OS.

And...

[Noksagt]

If the copyright holder doesn't know what to do, direct them to this story for now.

Someone should really setup a site which helps handle GPL violations by directing copyright holders to the right legal people & offers advice for how to handle violations. A database or wiki could also be setup to record alleged GPL violations & how they were resolved. IIRC, the mplayer project keeps some information on GPL violations on their website. Many were resolved & their site records this.

I'd be happy to help with such a project with my time and content.

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad to see you're willing to help. Since we want to prevent Open Source exploitation with license violations and abuse, would the GPL and GNU/Linux community please try to correct/settle this issue? Or, this is just more /. talk?

http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/g4l.html

Re:And...

[Noksagt]

Or, this is just more /. talk?

My offer to help is genuine. I'm not sure if I want to shoulder the lead on this by myself, but I may have to if no one else sees the need or volunteers.

http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/g4l.html

In teresting case. While they had every right to include the BSD-licensed code in a GPL-licensed suite, they failed to meet obligations of the BSD license. They should correct this, but this kind of "in-fighting" isn't really what I'm most concerned with. It may be important, but I am much more concerned with violators who aren't part of the F/OSS community.

I agree but...

[Noksagt]

it takes no time at all to contact the copyright holder in most cases. It is also better if they fight their own battles, especially in court. It would benefit both the copyright holder and you if you team up to handle the violation. You can share legal expenses, public relations duties, etc.

Re:Umm.. Proof?

[ewieling]

NuFone contributes alot back to the Asterisk developement. They also do not claim to have written their "product" themselves.

Re:Umm.. Proof?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nufone is a service provider not an equipment vendor. They are not direct competitors. Nufone is one of the leading supporters of Asterisk development and they have contributed greatly to the opensource development effort.
(Check the Asterisk Mailing lists)

Since we're commenting on product

[Sai Babu]

endorsement and condemnation, I'm gonna shill a bit.
Anyone out there in /. land needing VOIP to PSTN gateway with billing might contact my buddies at broadriver.com. 404 area code only, but reasonable prices for intra/inter lata, LD, and international. If you have a business overseas and would like an Atlanta GA phone number for USA sales, it's a hell of a deal.

just curious

[Goosey]

Maybe I am just ignorant in the issue, but I am curious.. What advantage is gained by companies using OS software and not contributing back?

I am not saying that everyone that uses OS software should be working on contributions. It certainly doesn't hurt the OS community.. But you seem to have a tone that there is some benefit from companies using OS software without giving back.

Unless I am missing something, that leaves the software right where it started.. And while it doesn't hurt it, it doesn't seem to help it either.

Re:just curious

[TheRaven64]

There are three possibilities when using Open Source software (for the rest of this comment, assume I'm talking about BSD/MIT licensed code, where all three are permitted).

1. Just use it. Don't make any changes. This is very cheap and easy to do, but offers little capability for a company to differentiate its product from the competitors.
2. Use it, modify it, keep the modifications secret. This makes it very easy to differentiate your product. The disadvantage is that you are forced to maintain a fork. Any security fixes, new features etc. from the main trunk must be merged into your branch at your expense. Since you are not contributing your changes, it is possible (and quite likely) that at some point changes will be introduced that break some of your modifications. You will need to work out these problems in your own branch, which may be difficult (read: expensive).
3. Use it, modify it, give the modifications back. This is relatively cheap, since you do not need to maintain your own fork. On the other hand, it makes it harder for you to differentiate your product. By timing your code releases with your product launches, however, it is possible that you can keep a head start on competitors.

Sometimes, case 3 is not possible. Apple, for example, release all of their changes to GCC (as required by license) but do not always have them accepted back into the main trunk. Examples of this include support for Objective-C++ which has been present in the Apple tree for a while, but not in the GNU tree. Recent changes in the Apple tree have allowed the changes to be imported, so GCC 4.0 should support Objective-C++.

In general, option 3 is best if you are using an open source project that is not your core business - Apple lose no commercial advantage by allowing other people access to their compiler, and maintaining a complete fork of GCC would be far more expensive.

Option 2 may be better if it is your core business, since you can maintain a commercial advantage by not releasing code (or by releasing it late, when you have a new feature that distinguishes your code from the others).

Re:just curious

[killjoe]

You left out one.

Use it, modify it, sell it, just ignore the license.

Re:just curious

[Kiryat Malachi]

No, that would be option 2. He specified MIT/BSD license where fork and sale is allowed. For licenses where fork, modify, and release without contributing back isn't allowed, option 2 simply isn't allowed.

Re:just curious

[killjoe]

" For licenses where fork, modify, and release without contributing back isn't allowed, option 2 simply isn't allowed."

My point is that companies do it anyway and just ignore the license.

Re:just curious

[Kiryat Malachi]

And my point is that those companies seem to be discovered and forced to fix their mistakes. Isn't that what this story is all about?

Thanks for your contribution...

[mgkimsal2]

In terms of full disclosure, my company also provides Asterisk-based solutions, however we have fully embraced Asterisk and gladly contribute back to the GPL.

but I think the GPL is pretty full and doesn't need any more contributions at this time.

one the many illegal reuses of open source...

[Uzull]

think about the netfilter and reactos cases...
And this will increase with time, with companies not caring for licenses just to make more profit...
The internet community should care and take such cases to the courts. netfilter has been successfull with this in Germany.

Re:Umm.. Proof?

[Tony Hoyle]

And this matters how exactly?

They're still competing businesses. It is in their interests to slashdot their competitor and give them a bad name.

not all of them ...

[TheLibero]

i work for a networking bluechip, and here they have been working in a project to clean their code (or code coming from OEM's) from any GPL-kind of code; and if that's not possible they will be marking the code clearly for public as an open source code. the legal department have been pushing this so hard!

Re:not all of them ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Try Ajax. Richard Stallman uses it to clean his toenails (in public) and it works GREAT!!!

Re:Umm.. Proof?

[ewieling]

Actually it's in their interest that their competitors play by the same rules that NuFone plays by. SysMaster is not doing that.

follow the BSA model

[Anonymous Coward]

Do what the Business Software Alliance does. Encourage disgruntled employees to be anonymous whistle-blowers. A nonprofit can set up a clearing house which receives evidence and even pays out rewards for verified infringements.

With enough money, they can also take out radio ads similar to the ominous BSA warnings that get played here in Chicago once a year.

undermines competitors

[mgkimsal2]

In a macro-sense, it helps the concept of open source by undermining money going to other closed source competitors.

Whether or not company A gets money for their open source product, company B selling a closed source product doesn't get any money to further market to other companies when companies X Y and Z use company A's product.

It's a very long-term view, but one could make that argument.

Where's the EFF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't the EFF fight Open Source piracy?

Community based web collaboration

[seanellis]

...to uncover those in breach of the GPL.

GrokCheat, anyone?

UmmmM

[_aa_]

Last I heard the entire point of open source code was using the code and redistributing it. As long as their product is open source and GPL'd as well, who cares? If they can use an OS project to aid the creation of a new OS project, I say more power to them.

Re:UmmmM

[VoidWraith]

Did you even read the summary? They're allegedly redistributing it claiming it as their own and trying to make a profit. Its also obvious that the product is not open source, otherwise this would not be an allegation, but a fact.

What a load of old cobblers!

[rqqrtnb]

Hard to believe a statement like that could be published - lets see now.

1. Asterisk is dependant upon Linux
2. Massive Asterisk growth = massive LINUX growth
3. Less any dedicated standalone jobbies
4. So an explosive growth in ASTERISK would = an explosive growth in LINUX PLUS you would have Telecoms developers their eyes to the world of LINUX - and become new users.

Really a classic case of the "Cart before the horse"!!!

HYPE etc - someone needs funding for something. sounds very MLM

Re:What a load of old cobblers!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, what the hell are you talking about?

Re:What a load of old cobblers!

[mcc]

Your point (1) is faulty. Linux may be Asterisk's primary platform but since it's open source you are just as free to go ahead and run it on, say, BSD or Solaris or Mac OS X. Meanwhile ports to more esoteric platforms are certainly an option, and it's already possible to run it on Windows if you have compatibility layer software. Linux will probably be the most likely platform to benefit from Asterisk being popular, but Asterisk definitely has potential outside of Linux.

Re:What a load of old cobblers!

[aldoman]

Linux will be the primary platform, if not, it'll be Windows (if someone ports it - not sure if it already is).

BSD has lackluster hardware support. It simply doesn't have the interest nor the amount of coders on it. Not trying to put it down here but if you have to fight with BSD and hardware when it 'just works' on Linux, guess which one will be the favorite.

Solaris is never going to happen. Overpriced hardware, with no tangible benefits apart from being locked into it.

OSX, also, not going to happen. There are probably less Mac administrators than Linux admins these days, and the hardware is frankly, not very good. The G5 has been surpassed by AMD64 and it's just lagging behind now, not to mention the hardware is highly proprietary and therefore spares are very hard to get at short notice (vs HP and Dell offering part swapouts within 4 hours). Also Linux can be compiled to be fully AMD64, whereas OSX doesn't really take advantage of the G5 as much.

Re:Umm.. Proof?

[tyler_larson]

Where's the evidence? Or did slashdot just post this without checking?

The evidence is gleaned from viewing the "strings" output of a SysMaster executable. You find such gems as

Asterisk CVS-05/30/03-20:39:27, Copyright (C) 1999-2001 Linux Support Services, Inc.
Written by Mark Spencer <markster@linux-support.net>

Of course, this evidence was compiled by NuFone (a contributer to Asterisk), so you can choose to disbelieve it if you want. But if you want to verify its veracity on your own and post your results, I'm sure that would be OK.

In case of GPL Violation

[Anonymous Coward]

GET JOHNNY COCHRAN

Re:In case of GPL Violation

[mrball_cb]

For what? The Chewbacca defense? Doubtful he'll work pro-bono.

Mob action not needed, return to normal trolling

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Digium also sells non-GPL'd copies of the work in question, they have a strong economic incentive to force these guys to either pay up for their non-GPL license or go GPL.

Put out your torches, save them for another day.

And for the lazy among you:

[cbr2702]

There seems to be some confusion here so I would like to make a few brief comments and will likely not add much to this thread other than these few things:

1) Digium *does* license Asterisk (as we distribute it, no additional features) outside of GPL and we *do* have commercial licensees already.

2) Digium appreciates the community keeping a watchful eye on other products in the marketplace which may be in violation of Asterisk's licensing terms. Please feel free to contact us directly if you have any concerns or questions.

3) I do not wish to comment specifically about Sysmaster's relationship with Digium at this time other than to say we are in contact with them.

Thank you again for all of your support in the community.

Mark

ah the /. trolls

[eofpi]

This will be modded redundant, but .... When someone could point out a hypocrisy within the /. crowd, but instead misses the mark, they are mocked to absurdity.

Re:ah the /. trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

Then a troll is every individual posting a perception of a flaw in the argument of the post responded to, to you? Perhaps rather it is you who are the troll and unable to contribute from either of the defined angles, define a third, or contribute useful information.

Re:ah the /. trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

The gp was joking. Or trying to.

MOD PARENT DOWN - SHOULD HAVE RTFL

[WindBourne]

there is a nice link that shows it and it was in the original posting

Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

How can we be sure that un-ethical companies will not try to steal code that is covered under the GPL

Easy - just keep backups. That way, if somebody steals your code, you still have it.

Oh... wait. Did you mean copyright infringement and not theft? When the RIAA and MPAA start talking about those nasty thieves, people are quick to point out that copyright infringement is not theft.

Double-standards stink. When somebody infringes upon the GPL, it's not theft, so don't exaggerate your grievance or accuse the other party of crimes they didn't commit. It just makes you look like a whiny liar and doesn't help your case.

Re:Easy solution

[killjoe]

That's right. Nobody is suggesting that criminal charges be levied or that people go to jail. In fact unlike the RIAA nobody is asking for money either. They are simple asking that you either stop or contribute your code like you were supposed to.

Re:Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is suggesting that criminal charges be levied or that people go to jail.

Theft is a crime.

USCO --does not enforce--.

[SuperBanana]

It is astounding given how much attention copyright gets here on slashdot that people still Don't Get It.

Yeah, I propose calling it "copyright" and setting up a US Copyright Office to enforce it.

The USCO does not enforce copyright. It registers copyrights.

There are no US Copyright Office boogeymen in black who run around arresting people either. If I steal your work, it is entirely your responsibility, in civil court (not criminal) to sue me and recover damages.

Further, copyrighting your code with the GPL license DOES NOT entitle you to expect the Free Software Foundation to go around suing people for you. They'll politely give you some suggestions on who to talk to and maybe a little basic advice, but that's it.

So many people don't get it- they whine about their code being stolen, but then don't do anything about it. As a result, corporations are fearless in violating the GPL license as has been proven again and again. The GPL license, as a result, is quickly becoming irrelevant.

When SCO claims Linus and others stole code, Linus and others need to sue them for liable(or slander, I forget). When Linksys fails to follow the GPL and steals code, the people who wrote the code need to immediately send them a cease and desist, and if they fail to comply, sue them to FORCE them to cease.

In this case, the Asterix developers need to pay a lawyer to file suit against the offending company, seek evidence by court order (if they are using GPL code, it'll be very easy to prove once you're in the door with a court search order), and if they find evidence, hammer them into the ground.

This is in bold because people need to wake up and get a clue. YOU NEED TO START BACKING UP THE GPL WITH LAWSUITS OR IT WILL BECOME COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT AND UNENFORCEABLE.

Re:USCO --does not enforce--.

[flossie]

As a result, corporations are fearless in violating the GPL license as has been proven again and again. The GPL license, as a result, is quickly becoming irrelevant.

I do not agree that the GPL is weakened if it is not enforced by everyone. The laws of copyright do not appear to have been weakened by widespread flouting of the law. Unlike trademarks which may lapse if not protected, authors still have the right to enforce their copyright (and hence the GPL) selectively, even if they choose not to.

When SCO claims Linus and others stole code, Linus and others need to sue them for liable(or slander, I forget).

Perhaps Linux should sue them for libel (written) or slander (spoken). However, that costs money and takes considerable time and effort. Is it really worth it? SCO's lies will be laid bare when all of the lawsuits finish. If IBM/Novell/Redhat win, there will be no damage to Linus's reputation. If SCO win (as if!), then Linus would not win anyway. So what would be the point?

Re:USCO --does not enforce--.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no US Copyright Office boogeymen in black who run around arresting people either.

Looks like they'll be leaving that sort of stuff to Homeland Security.

Thank God we've rid the world of radical Muslims who want to destroy the US, so we can use the Blackhawk helicopters full of jackbooted thugs for the important things, like protecting the intellectual property of huge corporations.

Re:USCO --does not enforce--.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I steal your work, it is entirely your responsibility, in civil court (not criminal) to sue me and recover damages.

You are completely wrong. If you steal something of mine, I can call the police and have you arrested for the criminal offence of theft. If, on the other hand, you infringed upon my copyrights, then it would be a civil matter.

Copyright infringement is not theft.

YOU NEED TO START BACKING UP THE GPL WITH LAWSUITS OR IT WILL BECOME COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT AND UNENFORCEABLE.

You are wrong here as well. Widespread infringement does not mean that copyrights are unenforcable. If that were the case, Britney Spears' songs would all be in the public domain by now.

Widespread infringement with no consequences does mean that it is more likely for somebody to infringe on copyrights, but I fail to see how that means that the GPL is "completely irrelevent and unenforcable".

Re:USCO --does not enforce--.

[Otter]

1) Yes, I am aware that the Copyright Office does not actively police copyrights. My original comment emphasized snideness over precision.

2) In the US, at least, Linus could not possibly make a workable libel case against SCO. In a country like Britain with a lower threshold for libel, there might be some value.

3) Lack of enforcement does not weaken copyright, and certainly does not weaken GPL licensing as a whole.

Re:USCO --does not enforce--.

[Kiryat Malachi]

Unfortunately, copyright infringement can be a criminal offense.

Militia enforcement

[rice_burners_suck]

How can we be sure that un-ethical companies will not try to steal code that is covered under the GPL and try to pass it off as their own?

Start a covert GPL enforcement militia group that goes around and, uh, takes care of GPL violators. The world will know that you do NOT steal GPL code, and then everything will be ok.

Re:Militia enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

Brings a whole new meaning to Commie Linux User, doesn't it? :) Perhaps we can call it the GNUKGB.

original e-mail

[l3v1]

in case you wish to read the source

The question should be rewritten...

[AchilleTalon]

How can we make sure a suspected company is not following the GPL rules before accusing them and taking some form of legal action against them?

He may be right in accusing them, but he may be wrong. Many concluded without proofs he is wrong, that's not better than him concluding this company is violating GPL rules without disclosed proofs.

Re:The question should be rewritten...

[Anonymous Coward]

this is too good a point to be modded "informative" or "insightful." please post using a more knee-jerk 8th grade mentality.

thanks,
the slashdot moderators

Re:The question should be rewritten...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say continue to "out" them as was done here. This is about the fifth case I have seen where a company is outed and they promptly buck up, either in code or cash. The whole GPL thing works pretty well as long as people stay vigilant. If it turns out that the author was paid for the rights or they made the source available then it blows over and the author has a few bucks to continue to contribute. If it turns out that no arrangement was made, the company will end up facing consequences.

Run-time downloadable GPL software

[Donny Smith]

Say there's a telco that uses Asterisk (or some similar software).
And let's suppose they distribute their products/boxes with just an OS that downloads the (GPL-based) code from the telco's data center when the owner boots the box.

In this situation they do not (re)distribute the GPL-based code so they're not obliged to give you the source code. (Of course Asterisk may have a non-GPL license for commercial use but most other GPL apps don't.)

To get around GPL restrictions h/w manufacturers should make the critical part of the code downloadable from the Net during boot-up procedure.

Re:Run-time downloadable GPL software

[flossie]

Say there's a telco that uses Asterisk (or some similar software). And let's suppose they distribute their products/boxes with just an OS that downloads the (GPL-based) code from the telco's data center when the owner boots the box.

Interesting idea, but futile, fortunately. The "downloads the (GPL-based) code from the telco's data center" would be the distribution upon which the GPL relies. If a vendor provides you with a box and causes some software to be loaded on to the box (other than by telling you to get the software and load it yourself), then they must at some point distribute the code. Hence, the GPL applies.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN - SHOULD HAVE RTFA

[haruchai]

Slashdot definitely needs a DNRTFL mod ( Did Not Read The Fucking Article )

USCO --does not enforce--Lawsuits.

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is in bold because people need to wake up and get a clue. YOU NEED TO START BACKING UP THE GPL WITH LAWSUITS OR IT WILL BECOME COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT AND UNENFORCEABLE."

Like how the RIAA, MPAA, EULAs, Book publishers, Artists, etc, etc, etc do with their copyrighted material?

Just using?

[The Cisco Kid]

Are they just *using* the product, or have they made proprietary modifications to it? If the former, they are not violating anything. Redistributing an *unmodified* copy of a GPLd program is not restricted.

Re:Just using?

[Tony Hoyle]

True, but if a customer asks for the source code they must give it.. even if it's unmodified.

Apparently they've been asked for the source and point blank denied that they use asterisk.

Re:Just using?

[jonastullus]

Are they just *using* the product, or have they made proprietary modifications to it? If the former, they are not violating anything. Redistributing an *unmodified* copy of a GPLd program is not restricted.

YES IT IS!!

for commercial redistribution the binary has to be accompanied either by the source code or by a written offer to give you the source code for a nominal fee. (see GPL 3 a,b,c)

although the internet has fascilitated distribution of source code, you'd still have to make sure that the source code you are linking to will compile as exactly the same binary you are distributing. therefore you really should copy the source code you used to a server controlled by you in order to ensure the equivalence of binary and source code!

jethr0

Translation for the stupid:

[JPriest]

Thanks for the heads up. Instead of spending money on lawyers to make us both broke, we are negotiating with Sysmaster to get them to buy a commercial license.

Wrongness corrected

[Anonymous Coward]

Asterisk is dependant upon Linux

$ cd /usr/ports
$ grep ^aster INDEX
asterisk-0.7.2|/usr/ports/net/asterisk|/usr /local| An Open Source PBX and telephony toolkit|/usr/ports/net/asterisk/pkg-descr|sobomax@ FreeBSD.org|net|expat-1.95.7 gettext-0.13.1_1 gmake-3.80_2 libgnugetopt-1.2 libiconv-1.9.1_3 libogg-1.1,3 mysql-client-4.0.18_1 openh323-1.12.0_3 openldap-client-2.1.30 pwlib-1.5.0_4 speex-1.0.3_1,1|libgnugetopt-1.2 libogg-1.1,3 mysql-client-4.0.18_1 openldap-client-2.1.30 speex-1.0.3_1,1|http://www.asteriskpbx.com
$ uname
FreeBSD
$

The cheaters problem is serious

[Anonymous Coward]

Take two companies in the same field, company A who cheats and company B who plays by the rules.

Company A succeeds because it has more options than Company B and manages to kill off Company B. Company A begins to grow and starts to worry about liability so they start finding alternatives to outright cheating.

Company A become legitimate but the damage is done. They are now the market leader. Since Company A doesn't have scruples is has no qualms about ethically grey tactics like presenting Company B's failure is presented as proof that it's important to stick with the market leader and not risk on a new competitor, Company C. If Company C does manage to grow, Company A, being the market leader, can alway purchase Company C or practise exclusionary licensing with resellers or excusionary shelf space agreements with outlets.

Lady and gentlemen, Company A is Microsoft and countless other scrupleless companies out there. Granted open source is finally bringing back some competition into the market and there's some hope that it can keep Microsoft from taking over everything in the next 10 years, but 30 years of vendor lock-in could have been avoided if society held Microsoft and other companies to high ethical standards.

It's in everyone's best interest for all of us to play fair.

Open Source in Telephony

[visionik]

At my company we use open source projects such as BIND (for an ENUM / DNS based call routing directory) around the edges of our VoiceXML / VOIP IVR hosting service, but not in our core platform.

Originally we did use early open source VOIP projects such as OpenH323. OpenH323 was great, but it needed to be replaced as we moved to SIP and required reliability beyond what OpenH323 offered.

Asterisk is in a similar place - it is a great project that has seen some great early success in voip. I have heard that Vonage, for example, uses it in their voicemail system. I also use it at home and we have several projects at work in the research phase that incorporate it.

Asterisk is not reliable enough for our production environment today - reboots every few weeks to few months are common. As a project it is similar to where Linux was 5+ years ago - plenty of momentum but not quite ready for mission critical use. I have no doubt Asterisk will become as pervasive and reliable as Linux and other leading open source projects have though. Asterisk is an extremely flexible, easy to work with project; and the people involved are also easy to work with and know telephony very well.

You need more proof than that

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone already called you on it:
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=129 632&c id=10812976

Here's proof for a different project:
http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/g4l.html

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN - SHOULD HAVE RTFA

[xenocide2]

All the strings prove is that they're using something based on Astrisk. It could be that they've liscenced the entire software suite a different way from the copyright holder.

If anyone's to blame, it might be Digium for not building and enforcing a branding on their non-GPL'd customers. If a company is using Digium software, it's in Digium's best interests to require some form of advertisement on the product reguarding that, similar to Intel Inside. It protects their clients, builds brand, and if the brand is strong enough, gives a statement of quality.

Its the price you pay

[nurb432]

You put out your code, people will use it.. Its a fact of life..

If you are concerned about it being 'stolen', then dont release it..

It may not be 'right' to take code when its under the GVL, but dont be suprised when it happens..

Re:Its the price you pay

[Anonymous Coward]

That can also be said about proprietary software. It's just harder to get actual source code in that case.

The GPL and theft

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm posting anonymously because I've used GPL code myself in the past without releasing it back into the public domain. The following phrase caught my attention in the story blurb:

How can we be sure that un-ethical companies will not try to steal code that is covered under the GPL and try to pass it off as their own?

If someone writes code, and then gives it away for free (that's why its called Free Software, after all) then how can spending time and money on improving the code and then not publishing the code be considered stealing?

By the way, there's a huge difference between music 'stealing' and code 'stealing'. The musician actually misses out on income. As far as I can tell, the code authors in this situation (and others) have not.

Re:The GPL and theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the license states that if you don't republish, you're in violation. Perhaps 'steal' isn't the right word, it should be called 'license infringement', since we don't tend to consider P2P stealing but rather 'copyright infringement'. Musicians don't lose money over individual downloads any more than authors of GPL'd code lose money over individual license violations.

The fact remains that if you don't republish, you are operating outside the license and so, unless you have permission from every single developer who has code in the project, are violating said license.

Re:The GPL and theft

[Anonymous Coward]

...someone writes code, and then gives it away for free (that's why its called Free Software, after all)...

First, English has two entirely distinct meanings for the word free. In the above sentence, you use both meanings as if they are the same.

Second, the code comes with an attached contract. By using the code, you agree to abide by the terms of the contract. Failing to do so is not stealing per se but something more akin to fraud.

Other examples, would be:
Distributing multiple unauthorized copies of paid-for software (this is NOT theft...merely a contract violation).
Using software that is exclusively licensed for charity, education, or personal use in a for-profit context.
Violating a non-competition agreement.
Bartering goods for service and failing to deliver the service.
etc.

Finally, I don't see any difference between a musician and a programmer. The programmer and the independant musician both OWN the RIGHTS to their work. This case is a good example because, as was pointed out earlier, the licensee is now paying the author for those rights. This is income that, in your world, the author would have missed out on.

The simplest solution

[harlows_monkeys]

How can we be sure that un-ethical companies will not try to steal code that is covered under the GPL and try to pass it off as their own?

The simplest way is to use a BSD license and not worry about it. There are plenty of ways to make money off of GPL'ed code without violating GPL that if money is your concern, GPL isn't going to stop people anyway, so might as well just let anyone use it for whatever they want and be done with it.

Re:Umm.. Proof?

[ZX81]

Evidence:

http://www.sineapps.com/news.php?rssid=311
BKW posts details of SysMaster's GPL violation

http://www.sineapps.com/news.php?rssid=313
JerJer posts details of string output

http://www.sineapps.com/news.php?rssid=314
Mark Spencer responds to claims

http://www.sineapps.com/news.php?rssid=316
Digium agrees to let SysMaster just pay back licencing fees because they are their biggest customer.

GPL vs. BSD license?

[Savet Hegar]

Doesn't the BSD license allow free use of the code without requiring the resulting product be licensed under the same license?

If so, isn't it completely legal to use BSD code in a GPL product and the resulting work is GPL'd?

The applicable license would be the result of where you obtained the code...so if you got it from BSD, you follow that license, if you got it from the GPL'd product, you follow that license....right?

Someone correct me if I misunderstand this.

RTFM

[scruffyMark]

It could be possible that they paid for a NON-GPL'd Version that they used as a base.

Except that the article (very short article, you can do it), explicitly states that the company claims to have developed the whole thing in house, and not to be using Asterisk under any license at all.

If they did have a legitimate commercial license, don't you suppose they would want to quickly clear the whole thing up by saying so as soon as allegations came out?

Re:RTFM

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes the article was read... and depending on the actual terms of the commercial lic. The may be able to do whatever they want with the code.

However, after seeing Marks post to the mailing list and other info, its kinda obvious they dont have said lic.

Anon Coward with the origin Could be possible post...

DO worry

[scruffyMark]

If you knowingly ignore a copyright violation, you are considered to have waived your copyright. As soon as a copyright holder becomes aware of the violation, they have to do something about it.

Re:DO worry

[Anonymous Coward]

That's totally false. How DO you come up with that kind of nonsense?

Re:DO worry

[cduffy]

That's totally false. How DO you come up with that kind of nonsense?

Mostly because the use of the overbroad phrase "intellectual property" gives people the impression that all "IP" is alike, so if something applies to trademarks -- why, it must be true about copyright or patent law as well!

That's my guess, anyhow. Yours is probably as good.

Punctuation?

[Quo_R]

What's wrong with these people? The punctuation in the article is so seriously fubar, it's not even funny.

Detection of code theft

[Anonymous Coward]

IDA:http://www.datarescue.com/ + http://www.sabre-security.com/BinDiff

Detection of code theft

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.datarescue.com/IDA + http://www.sabre-security.com/BinDiff (sorry, messed it up on the first attempt)

That's trademark, not copyright.

[cduffy]

Copyright isn't waived that way; neither are patents (though one may lose the ability to enforce them in specific cases, the patent itself isn't going to be lost due to submerging it).

Before you put the torch away...

[teknickle]

Hey, Bill's house isn't too far away.
Let's light it up and make smores while we reminisce about the early days of GPL and Microsoft saying the Internet was not a viable venture.

Not an issue

[IHateSlashDot]

How can we be sure that un-ethical companies will not try to steal code that is covered under the GPL and try to pass it off as their own?

You don't have to worry about this happening for voip. I've written highly scalable voip servers that are now deployed by several large carriers and cable companies.

The open source voip code is unusable. It may work if you're hacking something together for you house (as geeks are wont to do). But believe me. I looked into every voip package there was (open source, closed source, in-house, etc). The open source was horrible.

So, quit stressing about someone stealing it.

ah the /. crowd-Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yea right, when Slashdot speaks in one voice is when I turn to another site for commentary."

You mean like when all the "anti-copyright" posts get moderated up, and all the "pro-copyright" posts get moderated down. Technically it isn't speaking with one voice. Effectively it is however. That's why people are against censorship. Technically you can sit home and write all you want. Effectively no one hears you unless they go out of their way to do so. Something they don't have to do for the "preferred" argument.

Except...

[redfenix]

That in this case, the competitor is also a significant contributor to the GPL'ed code. Therefore, the competitor's contributed code is at stake as well, giving them a standing to sue.

I Know This Posting is Late, BUT Significant.

[LifesABeach]

I've worked with several people that sell telephone services. It isn't pretty. It's a classic case of something that is good for all people. This type of technology would allow rice farmers in north korea to talk directly to researchers at Stanford at little cost. But there is a problem, and it has nothing to do with VOIP.

There is a sub-set of "Wise-Guys" that provide people with VOIP technology and make a fine living from it. It is true that these "Wise-Guys" provide a service, but they do NOT give back for the knowledge that they have barrowed from.

To resolve this issue of abusers of open source, just answer peoples questions about open source. Openess is the hated torch in coperate obscurity.

Basic solution, implementation details lacking

[John Allsup]

Arrange the subroutines and coroutines in nontrivial ways with subtle dependencies that can easily be detected through reverse engineering (chasing the flow control graphs of an executable and looking for tell tale watermark patterns.) This would require a closed source knock off to do a lot of rewriting (and if they have the expertise and time to do this, they have more than enough time to write their own 'good enough' implementation from scratch.)

How exactly one does this would the a fruitful research subject for the open source community.

(I recall something similar being done with instruction selection in a86 so that the author could detect commercial binaries produced by unregistered copies of a86.)

In other words..

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words... Digium sold them a licence but they're not supposed to tell anyone.