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?

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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: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: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.

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).

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.

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.

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!

Community based web collaboration

[seanellis]

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

GrokCheat, anyone?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.