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

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.

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.