Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GNU Free Call Announced, SIP-based VoIP

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the free-is-better dept.

andrea.sartori sent in the "development plan for GNU Free Call, an open source VoIP service based on the SIP protocol. According to the announcement, it 'aims to be as ubiquitous and usable as the proprietary Skype VOIP service.'"

103 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. Unfortuantly... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    It will allow the government to track you.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:Unfortuantly... by cognoscentus · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, they certainly seem to have thought about that aspect:

      "This project’s definition of secure media is similar to Zimmermann’s work on ZRTP, in that we assure there is no forwarding knowledge by using uniquely generated keys for each communication session. Furthermore, we will use GNU Privacy Guard (GPG) to fully automate session validation. This will be done by extending the SIP protocol to exchange public keys for establishing secure media sessions that will be created by each instance of SIP Witch operating at the end points on behalf of local SIP user agents, and then verifying there is no man-in-the-middle by exchanging GPG signed hashes of the session keys that were visible at each end."

      So there are encryption measures in hand. Even vanilla VoIP has SIP over TLS and SRTP to work with. ZRTP is reasonably well supported too. It also employs a Skype-style P2P routing system, which should help provide a comparable degree of anonymisation: "Our goal is to make GNU Free Call ubiquitous in a manner and level of usability similar to Skype, that is, usable on all platforms, and directly by the general public for all manner of secure communication between known and anonymous parties, but without requiring a central service provider to register with, without using insecure source secret binary protocols that may have back-doors, and without having network control points of any kind that can be exploited or abused by external parties. By doing so as a self organizing meshed calling network, we further eliminate potential service control points such as through explicit routing peers even if networks are isolated in civil emergencies."

      So, which is preferable, transparency wise, a technology provided by a publicly traded company, or an open-source technology which can be administered by the end users if they so wish?

    2. Re:Unfortuantly... by think_nix · · Score: 1

      It will allow the government to track you.

      _newsflash_

      And other "services" do not ? Look at skype for example you have to connect to other nodes to open a call it is not a direct connection. Who is to say that some rogue node is in between ? SIP can be 2 way and not multi node.

      With GNU Free Call everything is open sourced. It would be a whole hell of a lot easier to find out and eventually block bad nodes, MitM, etc. Also not to mention some people who like to use OSS and operating systems will finally have a decent service/client to use on multiple platforms with other people if this takes off. Unlike the oh so "free" _less than better_ stuff we have now.

    3. Re:Unfortuantly... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      iPhone and Windows Phone 7 don't even allow GPL'd software, so good luck with that.

      Actually, GPLv3 software is unfortunately completely incompatible with the App Store model (it's in the GPLv3 terms). Microsoft explicitly calls out the GPLv3 in the agreement because it is fundamentally (and intentionally) incompatible.

      The GPLv2 license is subject to interpretation. There's lots of GPLv2'd software in the Apple App Store.

      The FSF case on GNU Chess (or Go?) was simple and succint, so Apple took it down promptly - I think it also helped that it was probably GPLv3. The VLC one took a few months while the devs bickered amongst themselves until Apple finally gave up and removed it. Funny enough, VLC hasn't seemed to make it on the Cydia app store, which is "open" but oh well.

      And please make the distinction between GPLv2 and GPLv3 - they are two different (potentially incompatible) licenses - there are things you can do in GPLv2 you can't do in GPLv3. Whether or not those GPLv3 restrictions make it incompatible with GPLv2-only is up for debate (are they restrictions? Or closing loopholes?). No longer does GPL by itself make any sense - and it just serves to muddle the waters because there's still a lot of GPLv2 software out there and a growing set of GPLv3, and obligations are different.

    4. Re:Unfortuantly... by zill · · Score: 1

      And just an announcement for development plan? Why not announce when something has been actually done?

      Because it's a great source of memes. Just look at GNU Hurd, it's like our very own Duke Nukem Forever.

    5. Re:Unfortuantly... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oooo. Wire tapping. Waste as many CPU cycles as you want intercepting my calls about grocery shopping, how your day went and what time we're meeting at the bar.

      If I *really* wanted to kill the president, start thermonuclear war, blow up dirty bomb in New York City, funnel money to Al Qaeda, etc. I'd find much better means of communication.

      There are dozens of 'free image sharing' websites. Pair that up with craigslist, steganography and some pgp and best of luck tracking all of that. If for nothing else the noise ratio is way too high.

      So I plan on blowing something up. I take a stock photograph of a car and dump a pgp message into it. I post it to craigslist under something that doesn't exist. Like "Rare 1963 Ford Mustang" My friends know what to look for and maybe an area.

      For example this image: http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/5563/steghide.jpg
      Download, then run it through:
      steghide --extract -sf steghide.jpg -xf message.txt -p bomb

      Or there's python-stepic. http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/4907/stepic.png
      stepic -d -i stepic.png -o jnk

      And you can embed more than just short messages. I tested out a 20 paragraph ipsum.
      http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4911/ipsum.jpg
      steghide, password 'slashdot'.

      It's only the dumb criminals/terrorists that get caught. If people WANT to hide messages, it's not that hard.

    6. Re:Unfortuantly... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      No GPLv3 is fine in an app store model. You just can't tivoize it. You also have to make source available, which is easy enough.

      Or is there some other clause I am missing?

    7. Re:Unfortuantly... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that the Appstore ToS adds restrictions to the licensing of Apps that are sold through it, and that's expressly forbidden under the GPLv2, I assume that to be the case with the GPLv3 as well. Any individual or organization that does that or attempts to do that causes the license to be immediately terminated.

      However, since the end users can still use the program and comply with the GPL I'm not sure how much of an issue it really is, but Apple would be infringing upon any software that it distributed in that fashion.

    8. Re:Unfortuantly... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      If it's that big of a concern, one really ought to be tunneling the SIP connection directly to the machine that they want to connect to anyways. That way you mostly have to worry about the end points and less so about the intermediaries.

    9. Re:Unfortuantly... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The point of the anti-tivoisation clause is to allow the end user to run modified binaries on the same platform that they run the unmodified version. If the device and app store in question do not provide a way for the user to grab the source, modify it, compile it (all can be on another device) and then install their modified version, then they can't comply with GPLv3.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:Unfortuantly... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      That sounds like an apple problem, not an app store one. Surely an app store without such restrictions could exist.

    11. Re:Unfortuantly... by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      An app store != App Store.

      Apple's App Store (notice the capitalization) has terms and conditions that make it impossible to distribute GPL v3 programs on there. Other "app stores" such as Cydia, Android Market, and heck, even repositories like apt-get don't have such silly terms and it is possible to have GPL v3 programs on there .

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    12. Re:Unfortuantly... by shic · · Score: 1

      The problem I foresee with a distributed system (as I understand Freecall is intended to be) is nuisance calls - the so-called SPIT (SPam over Internet Telephony...)

      Traditional phones mainly relied upon cost - and the likes of Skype have the benefit of infrastructure under their control.

      Are there any plans to address this (orthogonal) issue, I wonder?

    13. Re:Unfortuantly... by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      You assume that the government doesn't have efficient means of detecting stenography. I know some people that were doing doctoral work on the subject and suddenly they were working for the government and most of their research became classified.

      --
      AJ Henderson
    14. Re:Unfortuantly... by WaywardGeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, I can think of various technical solutions. For one, you only know the person on the other end based on their gpg public key, which is probably registered somewhere you reasonably trust if you want to accept the call. We could show you the registration info for the caller, and after answering you will find if the person on the other end claims to be the same person or organization. If the call turns out to be illegal spam (based on the national do-not-call list?), we could have buttons in the app to report the caller to both the registry where they published there public gpg key, and with federal authorities who may be able to look into major offenders.

      Another part of the solution could be the whole web of trust thing, which is a great idea that never seemed to pan out. In theory, if you are trying to call me, some non-spammer I know should be able to vouch for you. Somewhere out there should be someone willing to identifying all real people on the net. In fact, maybe I would pay this organization a few bucks to somewhat verify that I'm a real person, and not a robot, someone unlikely to spread spam. If we automated black-listing spammers so fast that they didn't get to make many calls with that few bucks they paid to get white-listed, it wouldn't be profitable for them.

      Another possibility is that for callers not on my white list, I demand some electronic cash for the call to go through, maybe something like a buck. If I accept the call and don't black list you afterwards, your white listed and your cash is refunded. If I blacklist you, I keep the buck. I'd love to do that one to my ex-wife if she ever calls :-)

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    15. Re:Unfortuantly... by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Well, either the government is expecting everybody to put stenographyc data at images and text at sites, or it is overwelmed trying to extract noise from every non-mainstream torrent out there. Either way, they'll only catch stupid people (if there is any stupid people that knows how to do stenography).

      Ok, the alternative is sane intelligency based filtering. Now, some governemnts may be able to do that, but it doesn't look mainstream.

      --
      Rethinking email
    16. Re:Unfortuantly... by Aldenissin · · Score: 1

      The upside? Duke Nukem Forever is going to ship!

      --
      Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
    17. Re:Unfortuantly... by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      That prevents eavesdropping but not the tracking, i.e traffic analysis and the creation of sociograms which today looks like the preferred model by the authorities. They are no longer that interested in what you say as much as who you are communicating with.

    18. Re:Unfortuantly... by Billlagr · · Score: 1

      I even saw a whole row of mock-up boxes on the shelves today, AND taking pre-orders!

    19. Re:Unfortuantly... by droidsURlooking4 · · Score: 1

      1. Not everyone who wants their communication private is a terrorist or a criminal. 2. With that in mind, who is interested in using the ridiculous image based method you mentioned for normal communication? Write 1500 words on 'Freedom & Liberty', then re-read your post.

    20. Re:Unfortuantly... by shic · · Score: 1

      While I commend the effort to find a way around the inevitable onslaught of spit, I note that there are technical drawbacks. The web of trust sounds like a great idea - until you try to use it... then most people find themselves ham-strung by human nature which finds 'vouching' to be an onerous responsibility - especially when the full implications of making errors is not understood. Conversely, a centralised directory almost completely undermines the value of using a decentralised mesh network over conventional technology. Finally - the e-cash suggestion is especially amusing for a project called Freecall. :)

      I see value in having software by which groups can self-organise - with their own contact lists - but that is a different proposition to replacing telephones or skype.

  2. Total Coincidence ... Right? by phantomcircuit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So this has no relation to the two previous articles? http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/11/03/15/0432226/Richard-Stallman-Cell-Phones-Are-Stalins-Dream http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/03/15/1513257/Encrypted-VoIP-Meets-Traffic-Analysis

    1. Re:Total Coincidence ... Right? by shish · · Score: 4, Funny

      What are you suggesting? That there's some sort of secret conspiracy, planning to take over the world by posting an unusually high number of phone-related news articles on a tech news site?

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    2. Re:Total Coincidence ... Right? by slim · · Score: 2

      He's suggesting that there might be some synergy between RMS talking about how cellphones provide a way for The Man to track you, and a GNU project popping it that aims to route voice communications through a P2P mesh with privacy features.

      Ya reckon?

  3. Drop the GNU. by surgen · · Score: 1

    Its aims are going to be crushed by its terrible name. GNU Free Call is a mouthful that even I, knowing what the acronym means, don't like the sound of. If they want adoption they should quit their self-promotion-in-the-name and re-brand, even "GFC" would be a million times better.

    1. Re:Drop the GNU. by Nerdfest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hate to upset RMS again, but dropping the GNU and just calling it FreeCall would be fine.

    2. Re:Drop the GNU. by royallthefourth · · Score: 2

      It'll probably be a command line tool or library that nobody will use in its pure form; instead, they'll use a GUI frontend with a completely different name. I expect it'll eventually be built into Pidgin and other chat programs.

      Of course, I didn't read the article so it's all a mystery! I love surprises.

    3. Re:Drop the GNU. by Shikaku · · Score: 1

      GNUCostCall (pronounced nu cost call) would kind of work...

    4. Re:Drop the GNU. by think_nix · · Score: 1

      It'll probably be a command line tool or library that nobody will use in its pure form; instead, they'll use a GUI frontend with a completely different name. I expect it'll eventually be built into Pidgin and other chat programs.

      Of course, I didn't read the article so it's all a mystery! I love surprises.

      And finally one IM/SIP/irc/etc Client for all your needs .

    5. Re:Drop the GNU. by funky_vibes · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I agree, the GNU in the name commands seriousness, and dedication of the project.
      From it people immediately understand, that there are some technical hard-hitters behind it, and that it won't suddenly turn into a free (but you need to pay) kind of thing, that happens to most of these so called "free" things.
      Without it, what's to differentiate the project from all the googles, voddlers, moogles, twitters, flickrs and all other stupid names that one can't even remember the difference of?

    6. Re:Drop the GNU. by surgen · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure I agree, the GNU in the name commands seriousness, and dedication of the project.

      Like the dedication to GNU/Hurd where they'll give up as soon as something better comes along?

      It doesn't command seriousness or respect. gcc and linux both have gnu in their name, but most common users never see it. When I see GNU in a name, I don't think there are smart people are behind it because of the name, there are smart people behind plenty of non-gnu open source projects too, I just see shameless self promotion.

      Frankly, outside of Free software communities, the GNU folks are acknowledged to do good work, but their brand is a bit of a laughingstock.

    7. Re:Drop the GNU. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Actually, you're doing it wrong. That's pronounced. Neek. Cost Call.

      If you do that again I shall say neek to you, good sir.

    8. Re:Drop the GNU. by slim · · Score: 2

      It looks like what they're doing is using SIP Witch as a basis. As far as I can tell, SIP Witch just connects endpoints to each other, allowing those endpoints to negotiate a protocol for what they're streaming to each other independently. I think the new thing here is that it'll be able to route through a P2P/mesh type arrangement, for privacy and independence from a single central service provider -- but everything else is existing code. ... and SIP Witch has the GUI separated from the daemon, as any sane architect would.

      That's what I gleaned from TFA and its comments. I could have misunderstood large parts of it. Feel free to correct me.

    9. Re:Drop the GNU. by bieber · · Score: 1

      Gnu Free Call would be a pain to say every time...which is probably why it will be commonly referred to as GFC if it acquires a significant userbase...

    10. Re:Drop the GNU. by i-linux123 · · Score: 1

      OMG, I LOL'd, you are so right! :D

    11. Re:Drop the GNU. by Korin43 · · Score: 1

      No, they'll use 12 different GUIs that depend on a hundred different libs and apps on different platforms. You'll go to the "gnufreecall" website and get a list of links to FTP sites that contain different and incompatible versions of various backend tools and GUIs, with "installation instructions" that start with, "To install from github..."

      Oh no! Not multiple programs using the same library! Then we'll get terrible confusion like how end-users want to download Webkit, but it's a huge pain because they have to find their own Javascript library and network stack and everything, and then do a bunch of programming, then compile it themselves. It would be really helpful if normal users didn't know what libraries are, and always looked for an actual program instead of library -- like Safari, Chrome or Konquerer, but average people are way too interested in low-level details of their computer for that to ever work..

    12. Re:Drop the GNU. by StikyPad · · Score: 2

      Or coming up with an actual fscking name. Why is this so difficult for OSS? Free Call is uninspired and reminiscent of both built-in Windows card games and, not coincidentally, "fecal." Here's a few alternatives off the top of my head:

      VoCall, SyndiCall, CryptologiCall, UnequivoCall, etc...
      Banter
      Speakeasy
      Clarity
      Teleport
      Switchboard
      SPL (pronounced "spiel")
      Freq. In/Out
      Streaming Telephony Framing Utility
      uPhone (greek mu, pronounced "microphone" by geeks; "you phone" by idiots; "lawsuit" by Apple)

      Really though, there's endless possibilities...

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    13. Re:Drop the GNU. by Tamran · · Score: 1

      Speakeasy is a pretty damn solid name actually!

    14. Re:Drop the GNU. by LambdaWolf · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I'm grateful for all the tools that have been published under the GNU name, but it's PR poison. Let me count the ways:

      1. People who read it for the first time will pronounce it "new".
      2. Other people who talk to them will look for "New Free Call".
      3. Geeks who talk to them will give them the "it's pronounced guh-noo" speech, which sounds dumb.
      4. People will inevitably want to know what the acronym stands for. When they find out, it will sound like Dadaist word salad and they will wonder why it is so damned important that this phone service is Not Unix. And that's only if they understand the...
      5. ...recusive acronym, which will come off as smug or confusing more often than it does as clever.
      --
      "This algorithm runs in constant time. Come on, 2,147,483,648 is a constant..."
    15. Re:Drop the GNU. by Billlagr · · Score: 1

      Global Financial Crisis?

    16. Re:Drop the GNU. by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      It would be pronounced "New Free Call" . People would wonder about the "Old Free Call"

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    17. Re:Drop the GNU. by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      Gnu Free Call is only 3 syllables, so is GFC, equally pronounceable. Unless you pronounce the "G".

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
  4. Peer-to-peer module for Ekiga? by molo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    In case you're not aware, Ekiga already exists and is a free-software SIP client implementation. See http://ekiga.org/ . At best this should be an extension for Ekiga, not an entirely new project.

    -molo

    --
    Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    1. Re:Peer-to-peer module for Ekiga? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In case you're not aware, Ekiga already exists and is a free-software SIP client implementation. See http://ekiga.org/ . At best this should be an extension for Ekiga, not an entirely new project.

      -molo

      Ekiga is a softphone client, not secure self-organized communication services.

      This project aims to implement the entire VOIP network back-end, vaguely similar to how Skype does it (largely P2P).

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    2. Re:Peer-to-peer module for Ekiga? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? This is free, open-source software, where fragmentation and throwing a hissy fit by starting your own fork are the first steps to the path of failure and obscurity.

    3. Re:Peer-to-peer module for Ekiga? by cpghost · · Score: 1

      This project aims to implement the entire VOIP network back-end, vaguely similar to how Skype does it (largely P2P).

      I sure hope they won't need any central servers, including DNS, that could be used as choke points by any entity (commercial or government) to shut off the network.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    4. Re:Peer-to-peer module for Ekiga? by InterStellaArtois · · Score: 1

      Telepathy framework

      Falls off chair reaching for tin-foil hat ...

    5. Re:Peer-to-peer module for Ekiga? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I'm also hoping they route all internet traffic by satellite, otherwise the government could use routers as choke points to shut off the network.

    6. Re:Peer-to-peer module for Ekiga? by slim · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm out of date, but the problem used to be that you couldn't do peer-to-peer without a third-party (e.g. Skype) at a known address.

      I'm not sure what you mean by peer-to-peer, but if your friend knows your IP address, and your home router is forwarding connections to some port (UPnP will do this automagically), and your host is listening, then they can open a socket to you, and that's p2p as far as I'm concerned.

      If your IP address isn't static, then you have the difficulty of communicating your current address to them. I guess most of the various ways you could do that -- dynamic DNS, emailing it to them, some sort of centralised hub used to negotiate the connection (Skype, a BT tracker, ...), etc. -- would count as a third-party.

      It seems as if their vision is that the "third party" be a self-organising mesh of servers. I don't know who'd run them, but then I'm not sure who runs Bittorrent trackers either :)

    7. Re:Peer-to-peer module for Ekiga? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      BitTorrent Trackers are a centralized hub. While anyone can run a tracker, everyone thats sharing still has to use the tracker to find others.

      While an entirely P2P setup sounds great, from a practical standpoint, it pretty much is an utter failure when you have dynamic addressing and routing ... i.e. the way the Internet works.

      You have to find out how to find other users from somewhere, someone thats trusted to not feed you bogus information. In a true P2P mesh, where no one is 'trusted' its (from a practical standpoint) impossible to prevent rogue nodes from screwing up the system. The damage may be limited, but it still occurs.

      You can (using PKI) prevent someone from pretending to be someone they aren't, but you still have to find them, and a rogue node can ruin that for anyone that uses it.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    8. Re:Peer-to-peer module for Ekiga? by slim · · Score: 2

      Well, there ya go.

      More for other readers than for you, here's what TFA has to say about peer discovery.

      Initially we will extend sipwitch to become aware of peer nodes by supporting host caches, and then support publishing of routes to connected peers. This work builds upon the already existing routing foundation in sipwitch itself. The use of host caches is a mechanism used in older p2p networks, it is generally well understood, it would meet the initial goals of establishing a self organized mesh network, and it is rather easy to initially implement to fully demonstrate the potential of sipwitch as a mesh calling system. More advanced methodologies can then be added later on.

    9. Re:Peer-to-peer module for Ekiga? by 21mhz · · Score: 1

      Moreover, that SIP UA (telepathy-rakia based on sofia-sip) does not work with ekiga.net from behind a NAT, due to broken ways in which the ekiga.net server(s) implement NAT traversal.

      --
      My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
    10. Re:Peer-to-peer module for Ekiga? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      That's an awful lot of "ifs", most of which require the person on each end to jump through a lot of hoops.

      Hence why Skype has become popular with end-users and SIP-based telephony is pretty much relegated to businesses that can call on the expertise to set it all up.

    11. Re:Peer-to-peer module for Ekiga? by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Well you have to bootstrap the clients somehow, and think about NAT, or even worse, the coming carrier grade NAT. But it sure can be made in a far more distributed way than Skype.

  5. Open Sourced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh oh! Being GNU, does that mean that my conversations become open sourced by purely communicating over this service? I'm wondering this because technically my voice is being de-compiled into a byte stream and then re-compiled on the other end. Doesn't that make all my conversations bound to the terms in GPL? And how would I attach the source code of my conversation? Would I have to have some sort of text-to-speech implemented (non-proprietary of course) to facilitate this? And if I am discussing something related to application design and as a result of the conversation we implement new features, does my application then become bound to GPL? And if so do I need to attach source code to the GNU VoIP service to my application?

    Hmmmmmmm

    1. Re:Open Sourced? by Shikaku · · Score: 1

      This is satire. There are people that actually believe this kind of reasoning. See: managers.

      (Off-topic: but you would have to admit the "derivative works" parts of the GPLv2 is vague terminology, and can give odd ideas like using gcc means you must open your code.)

    2. Re:Open Sourced? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      (Off-topic: but you would have to admit the "derivative works" parts of the GPLv2 is vague terminology, and can give odd ideas like using gcc means you must open your code.)

      Fortunately, at least in America, there is legal precedent already which says that the GCC example doesn't hold true. MS doesn't own your word docs, Adobe doesn't own your PSDs and GNU doesn't own your binaries, no matter how much anyone tells you otherwise.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  6. Erm... by shellster_dude · · Score: 3, Informative

    Empathy, Ekiga, Twinkle... the list goes on. Even pidgin has SIP plugins. Why is this project special or needed?

    1. Re:Erm... by cobrausn · · Score: 4, Funny

      None of those have GNU in the name.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    2. Re:Erm... by shellster_dude · · Score: 1

      Oh and if you say that the new application will implement the entire VOIP backend, then have you heard of Asterisk?

    3. Re:Erm... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      Empathy, Ekiga, Twinkle... the list goes on. Even pidgin has SIP plugins. Why is this project special or needed?

      As I understand it, the crucial difference here is that their objective is to implement the VOIP back-end as a P2P service. Something like what Skype does now, but without being evil.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    4. Re:Erm... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      This is supposed to be a peer to peer system. Which makes me wonder how will it interface with POTS or will it just be an internet only system.
      In which case why not just use voice chat over any number of jabber clients?
      Of course you are correct in one really important way. It would be dumb to not develop a plug in for Asterisk for this. You can buy a Skype gateway for Asterisk now.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Erm... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      This is supposed to be a peer to peer system. Which makes me wonder how will it interface with POTS or will it just be an internet only system.

      I'm not sure they're thinking that far ahead, but perhaps the POTS gateways would just be "peers?"

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    6. Re:Erm... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Who will pay for the pots interface? Will they create a billing system so people can add a POTS interface to their system and make some cash?
      That is the issue. It takes money to interface to POTS. That is why Skype charges for it.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:Erm... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      Who will pay for the pots interface? Will they create a billing system so people can add a POTS interface to their system and make some cash? That is the issue. It takes money to interface to POTS. That is why Skype charges for it.

      Short answer: the users of the gateway will pay for it, just as they do now.

      Long answer: SIP gateways that charge for their services exist already. They are not necessarily connected with the suppliers of the SIP clients. Generally, they are separate business that happen to have a customer-facing SIP service. Currently, you log into the SIP service and they route your call to the land-lines via the internet. What would change with the new protocol is the routing between your client and the SIP-to-POTS gateway. I assume it would simply use the peer-to-peer service instead of routing the connection and information itself. There would be some authentication and billing issues to work out, but they're hardly show-stoppers.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    8. Re:Erm... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      If you are going to contract with a sip provider then why have this project?
      If you really want to do computer to computer communications why not use Jabber? It is already an open standard and has been adopted by both Google and Facebook. There are a large number of Jabber servers that are open to the public as well.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  7. YASI Yet Another SIP Implementation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Summary:

    • They are taking SIP Witch and adding GPG integration.
    • Each device that wishes to communicate will run its own SIP Witch instance....
    • ... though you can still run a central SIP Witch instance like today.
    • The modified SIP Witch will initially rely on host caches for P2P connection...
    • ... and in the future will move away from that to Some Sort Of Magic for node discovery and connection.
  8. Re:Doubt it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    When people started using websites and home routers

  9. SIP is a terrible protocol, why not IAX2? by funky_vibes · · Score: 2

    SIP doesn't even traverse NAT firewalls without help from outside, and even then, barely.
    SIP is also too verbose, and therefore it's hard to tweak the network to avoid jitter. (This is a huge problem currently)

    A large reason why Skype became so popular is, that it didn't have the same problems as SIP.

    IAX2 has none of these problems, supports multiple line trunking, and, it's already supported by lots of software and hardware.

    IAX2 was developed out of a need for an efficient call trunking protocol for the free PBX called Asterisk.
    In the beginning, the author clearly stated IAX shouldn't be used by others (moving target), but since it's clearly being used already, it's become a sort of de-facto standard since nothing else works as well.

    1. Re:SIP is a terrible protocol, why not IAX2? by Superken7 · · Score: 2

      "SIP doesn't even traverse NAT firewalls without help from outside, and even then, barely."
      Yep, thats what ICE is for.

      What do you mean, if it traverses NAT, then only barely? I didn't know you could barely send an IP packet. is there anything like an O_BARELY flag? ;)

    2. Re:SIP is a terrible protocol, why not IAX2? by funky_vibes · · Score: 1

      ;)

      Depending on the type of NAT and the SIP implementation, it either works or it doesn't.
      Also I don't want to reconfigure my client each time I change network.

      In my view, this is the *main* reason for the weak adoption of SIP, it's also getting way too complicated.

    3. Re:SIP is a terrible protocol, why not IAX2? by Jon+Stone · · Score: 1

      SIP doesn't even traverse NAT firewalls without help from outside, and even then, barely

      The problem here is NAT, not SIP. The solution is IPv6 and reintroducing end-to-end connectivity. SIP is also only the signalling protocol. The actual multimedia streams are usually RTP, so the jitter you refer to is nothing to do with SIP.

    4. Re:SIP is a terrible protocol, why not IAX2? by funky_vibes · · Score: 1

      You're ignoring the problem, currently, a large part of networks are ipv4 and behind NAT. It's not likely to change for at least 5 years.

      A blackbox experiment I did:
      * There's a NAT connection where I always get jitter with SIP.
      * IAX2 handles at least 20 lines with no jitter over the same connection.
      * If I use SIP over an SSH tunnel, the problem goes away.

      You could say there's a flaw in the network config, but since *everything* else works well this indicates to me that there's a fundemental flaw in the design of SIP, possibly the flaw is that SIP uses multiple connections for a single call.

  10. Request to the developers by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

    A last moment request to the developers: Please make exiting of the reference client the key sequence ESC:wq\n and not Ctr-X Ctrl-C. Please?!

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    1. Re:Request to the developers by Zebedeu · · Score: 1

      If you're referring to the problem with Empathy, the solution was posted in the bug report here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/empathy/+bug/486508/comments/11

      I just had that issue, you can modify /usr/share/empathy/empathy-chat-window.ui and change the line that says:
      <accelerator key="W" modifiers="GDK_CONTROL_MASK"/>

      to

      <accelerator key="Escape" />

      and ask for forgiveness to the gods that decided that would be a sin, cheers

    2. Re:Request to the developers by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      If you're referring to the problem with Empathy

      He's actually requesting that they employ the exit command from vi instead of the one from Emacs :)

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
    3. Re:Request to the developers by Zebedeu · · Score: 1

      Oh, whoops :-)

      I use nano myself.
      Ctrl-x y

  11. Re:Doubt it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    audacity is not GNU, linux is not GNU, VLC is not GNU. hell even gcc isn't much GNU, and hasn't been for a long time. I don't know what's filezilla and can't be bothered to google it, but judging by the name I can safely say that it isn't GNU either.

  12. Re:Aims to be as ubiquitous as Skype... by DrXym · · Score: 1
    Oh it could be as ubiquitous as Skype. It just requires the project to have the dedication and pragmatism to see the idea through from the concept to a real world client and infrastructure which is comparable (preferably better) than what's already there. That means an attractive client that works on every major OS, a protocol seamlessly adapts to runs through firewalls and so forth, and an infrastructure which is adaptive, secure and cheap and beneficial to run.

    But as this is a GNU project we're talking about it will probably be none of those things.

  13. Will likely never work in the USA by Algorithmn · · Score: 1

    Congress passed a law requiring US based ITSP's to provide E911 support. If this idea ever went live it would require the same connections to E911. This connection costs money, its not free...

    GNU VoIP would have to pay Verizon/Comcast/et cetera to connect to E911 and who is going to pay for that?

    Unless congress provides an exemption.. (pfft, yahh)

    1. Re:Will likely never work in the USA by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So don't base it in the USA. That does not mean folks in the USA can't use it.

    2. Re:Will likely never work in the USA by Algorithmn · · Score: 1

      First implication that comes to mind is...

      If you want to get sued when someone picks up your phone and dials 911 during an emergency.. Does a sticker really prevent liability (this phone isn't connected to 911)?

    3. Re:Will likely never work in the USA by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      If you want to get sued when someone picks up your phone and dials 911 during an emergency.

      Um, what? I know you guys are pretty trigger-happy when it comes to lawsuits, but could some Joe really sue you because a random device isn't what they thought it was?

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
  14. The only issue is that it's crapware! by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

    Seriously, I tried sipwitch on my laptop, and quickly removed it when I realized that it was often using 100% of my CPU. Bad experience. I hope they will improve, because I, too, need a free software alternative to Skype.

  15. Re:Aims to be as ubiquitous as Skype... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's exactly the problem, I think, and I'm glad you pointed it out -- the GNU folks and Stallman in particular are so detached from reality that they don't even seem capable of developing software that meets a casual user's needs. It's a sad state of affairs considering how much GNU has contributed to the open source world, only to become increasingly irrelevant every time Stallman opens his mouth. What they probably need is new leadership, but if that neckbeard is willing to get himself worked up into a frenzy over "it's GNU/Linux, not Linux," I sincerely doubt he'd be willing to step down and allow for some sensible decisions to be made for a change.

  16. I'll wait until by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Steve Ballmer intimates this is infringing on Microsoft patents; then I'll know it's real.

  17. Unstable by MyGirlFriendsBroken · · Score: 1

    I miss read the summary at first and thought they are aiming for it to be as stable as Skype, I thought can't you aim a little higher than that guys.

    Reminds me of someone talking about how they got 5 nines uptime with Windows, some else asked if they were aiming for 10% next year

    --
    If you read a speed reading book, does it take you less time to read the second half?
  18. I've hurd of that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Think it will ever happen? Or is this just more GNU vaporware

  19. GNU FC-IT by Zed+Pobre · · Score: 1

    Meh, personally, I hope it goes through, because if you ever have to support it, you'll be in the Gnu Free Call Information Technology group, and get to say to people...

    GNU -- FC IT, but how can I help you anyway?

  20. Re:Doubt it by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

    Of those, gdb and gcc are the only GNU ones. Since gdb and gcc went GPLv3, they've become a lot less ubiquitous - the main effect that I've seen from GCC going GPLv3 has been that LLVM and Clang have gained a lot more developer time. GDB is still probably the best hippyware debugger. PathDB is slowly getting there, and LLDB doesn't seem to have much non-Darwin-related activity.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  21. Resemblence by DaMattster · · Score: 2

    As others noted, it bears some remote resemblence to skype. I wonder why they chose GNU Free Call and decided to go the peer to peer route. I would think having a community hosted, distributed PBX would be a much better solution. I happen to really like SIPXECS at http://www.sipxecs.org./ It lends itself to distribution quite well. Plus, SIPXECS is quite mature as a platform. I cannot help but cast a somewhat dubious eye at GNU Sip Witch.

    1. Re:Resemblence by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Beacause with the BW involved you have to go the P2P route. FSF is not going to shell out massive amounts of cash for fat pipes.

  22. Re:Doubt it by O'Nazareth · · Score: 1

    What? Emacs is not GNU?

  23. What an unfortunate name... by Kaldaien · · Score: 1

    I was all excited to see what a VoIP program that distinguishes itself as being "free of GNU" really meant. Come to find out, it is just a GNU project with a terrible name.

  24. I hope they actually ship something by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

    Whether you like Stallman's politics or not (i think he's a bit of a zealot, but I'm sure he'd agree and think as a compliment) there's a decent history of projects launched and ending up in some kind of Limbo someplace. Even emacs, his pet project, got forked into xemacs because of inactivity. The hurd has gone through many iterations, many underlying microkernels, and seems irrelevant. Even gcc, probably the best known and used FSF project, was forked by the egcs team and moved so much quicker than mainline gcc that it eventually became the new Guardians of gcc. Remember that The Cathedral and the Bazaar used FSF gcc development as the closed Cathedral model.

    So, will this be a typical FSF project where they copy something badly (GNU gdbm vs Berkely dbm) just because they can? Or will Stallman realize that the best way to get people to use his code is to get them something actually usable, and not rely on the excuse 'well it's OPEN'.

  25. Re:Doubt it by Korin43 · · Score: 1

    All of that and you don't mention GNOME (or perhaps more importantly -- GTK)? :p

  26. similar to Skype, that is, usable on all platforms by BestNicksRTaken · · Score: 1

    the op obviously hasn't tried the "latest" 2.1 beta of skype for linux - i expect he's been using skype 5 on windows/osx.

    --
    #include <sig.h>
  27. Re:Unfortunately... by wild_berry · · Score: 1

    Perhaps we need to add steganographic noise to the other elements on your photo-sharing sites, just so that your messages don't stick out like a sore thumb.

  28. A feature to bring it to the top by Reteo+Varala · · Score: 1

    The one feature I have not seen on ANY of the VoIP programs, game, phone, or otherwise, is a nifty little system called JACK. To have a VoIP client with the ability to connect with other JACK clients would be downright awesome; this would especially be the case for broadcasters, podcasters, and other types of people who work with sound for a living.

    --
    The Penguin Producer
  29. Re:Aims to be as ubiquitous as Skype... by nemesisrocks · · Score: 1

    I don't know about you, but my smartphone has an SIP client, built right in. SIP-originated calls are virtually indistinguishable from GSM/3G calls, apart from the caller ID.

  30. Re:Richard Stallman by c0lo · · Score: 1

    Now Richard Stallman can finally have a regular phone! But not a cell phone of course. They are coming...

    Sure they are... Hardest part: put a freedom-box in every home (with mesh-networking enabled)...

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  31. Three times fail by TuringCheck · · Score: 1

    All these have already failed when applied to mail - what makes you think they'll work for telephony?

    1. Re:Three times fail by WaywardGeek · · Score: 1

      No, they haven't been tried for e-mail, and they would work if put into common use.

      If we were willing to upgrade e-mail protocols, we could beat spam. How dumb is it that we allow any person in the world to trivially claim to be any other person when sending you an e-mail? Imagine what a pain it would be if Google and Facebook leak e-mails of all their users and their contact lists? Heck, we don't even have the will shift to secure DNS. Like the shift to IPv6, the world wont willing move forward unless forced. Instead of even switching to a system as simple as signing e-mail, we've got Bayesian filters and gray-listing at servers. The reason I use gmail (which doesn't support signing), is their spam filtering and gray-listing is the best I've found, which is probably only true because they have more money to throw at the problem.

      Add signing, and a way to demand a refundable electronic cash deposit to be considered for white-listing, and problem solved.

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell