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?

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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

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.