VoIP Mailing List Archives

[paul.degt at gmail.com]

http://versafon.com/versafonweb/Software.jsp

Essentially it's a wrapper around inbound socket interface, not all
events supported yet, and not all event parameters/variables. It's multi
threaded and scaled well in testing.
We offer commercial support and development for FreeSwitch as well.

_______________________________________________
Freeswitch-users mailing list
Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org

[raffaele.p.guidi at gm...]

uhm... nice! But why not MPL license (the same as freeswitch)?

On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 04:06, paul.degt@gmail.com (paul.degt@gmail.com) <paul.degt@gmail.com (paul.degt@gmail.com)> wrote:

[diego.viola at gmail.com]

Because they probably want a stronger copyleft license?

I prefer the GPL because of that reason.

On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Raffaele P. Guidi <raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com (raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com)> wrote:

[paul.degt at gmail.com]

Yes, that's one of the reasons. Another point is that GPL v.3 is defined
more clearly from legal perspective, at least from our legal adviser
point of view.

Diego Viola wrote:

[brian at freeswitch.org]

I still say why not MPL or at the very least MPL/GPL?

/b

On Jun 20, 2009, at 9:37 AM, paul.degt wrote:

[paul.degt at gmail.com]

As I mentioned the decision was influenced by our legal adviser. And it
probably can be relicensed as MPL/GPL, but why?
My understanding is that for an end user which wants to use a free open
source software there should be absolutely no difference between GPL and
MPL.
But if any one has has any licensing concern with his particular use
case - please contact me with the details, I will do what I can to help.


Brian West wrote:

[brian at freeswitch.org]

There actually are issues between the GPL and MPL

/b

On Jun 20, 2009, at 11:12 AM, paul.degt wrote:

[paul.degt at gmail.com]

Not unless you combining GPL and MPL code in one binary, which I find
highly improbable in case of FreeSwitch.
And even in this case there seems to be a workaround:

"However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program (or
parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well.
If part of a program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any
other GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice,
that part of the program has a GPL-compatible license."

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses


Brian West wrote:

[anthony.minessale at g...]

License is less important in a socket interface lib.
Its not really a big deal what license it is guys.
However, I did create a BSD ESL lib distributed with FS to make sure nobody would have any license problems connecting to our stuff.
If you don't like this lib consider using swig on the wrapper lib in libesl like I have done for perl, lua, php, python, ruby etc.

[raffaele.p.guidi at gm...]

Well, GPL for a library is a dead end. Nobody will use it unless for open source projects. I would consider any possible choice before using it.

Regards,
   Raffaele

On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 18:12, paul.degt <paul.degt@gmail.com (paul.degt@gmail.com)> wrote:

[paul.degt at gmail.com]

That's rather bold statement and indicates lack of knowledge on the
subject . I would advise you to look at
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html on GPL information.
In fact proprietary applications can use/modify GPL software with no
limitations or obligations towards authors. The only requirement is if
such applications will be published/distributed it must be done under
GPL license. If that's a problem - just ask authors to release a
commercial version for such purpose.
I think GPL is fair and easy to deal with.


Raffaele P. Guidi wrote:

[raffaele.p.guidi at gm...]

Right, fair and easy to deal with. And also to NOT deal with - as would any developer working in a commercial company.  Again, I would consider any possible choice before using it.

Regards,
   Raffaele

On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 22:15, paul.degt <paul.degt@gmail.com (paul.degt@gmail.com)> wrote:

[anthony.minessale at g...]

We don't need to argue licenses the topic is way too subjective. To each his own. Let's concentrate on the code and the cool features we can make in the future.

[steveu at coppice.org]

paul.degt wrote:

[paul.degt at gmail.com]

I have Fortune 1000 clients myself, and frankly speaking in real world
they don't even care what type of license the free stuff has. Why?
Simple. Because 90% of the time these companies buy commercial support
and being a commercial customer it's very easy for them to get a
commercial version
of the software for a reasonable price. But the latter not happening
very often - most of the time they never publish their in-house software
since it's their competitive advantage -
and thus no reason to be concerned about license type.
As to "legal uncertainties" - frankly I don't know, my lawyer liked it,
knowing how complex the law can be I am sure any type of license free or
non-free can potentially bring legal issues - it's imperfect world.

Steve Underwood wrote: