VoIP Mailing List Archives
Mailing list archives for the VoIP community |
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kpfleming at digium.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 7:39 pm Post subject: [asterisk-users] Zaptel project being renamed to DAHDI |
 |
|
Last week some changes were made in the Zaptel source code repository
referencing a new name (DAHDI) for that code. This has caused some
discussion (and confusion) in the community, since it occurred before we
had made a public announcement of the name change.
However, that announcement is now official, and is located here:
http://blogs.digium.com/2008/05/19/zaptel-project-being-renamed-to-dahdi/
In addition, there will be a Frequently Asked Questions page located at:
http://www.asterisk.org/zaptel-to-dahdi
We will post details on that page as we can over the next few days.
--
Kevin P. Fleming
Director of Software Technologies
Digium, Inc. - "The Genuine Asterisk Experience" (TM) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
joakimsen at gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject: [asterisk-users] Zaptel project being renamed to DAHDI |
|
|
I am wondering two things:
1) What are the implications, trademark-wise, for 3rd party hardware
vendors? Will Digium crack down on the use of DAHDI name? Will some be
forced to call it the "Prominent North American Opensource Telephony
Vendor's Hardware Device Interface?" (PNAOTVHDI)
2) In the article you posted you reference more than just a simple
name change. How will this affect the use of 3rd party cards, e.g.
Sangoma. Is Digium committed to keeping DAHDI as open as Zaptel,
making it easy for 3rd party vendors to piggy-back their drivers onto
the architecture? Is digium trying to make these cards obsolete in
Asterisk 1.6?
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Kevin P. Fleming <kpfleming at digium.com> wrote:
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
russell at digium.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:21 pm Post subject: [asterisk-users] Zaptel project being renamed to DAHDI |
|
|
On May 29, 2008, at 8:00 PM, Andrew Joakimsen wrote:
| Quote: | I am wondering two things:
1) What are the implications, trademark-wise, for 3rd party hardware
vendors? Will Digium crack down on the use of DAHDI name? Will some be
forced to call it the "Prominent North American Opensource Telephony
Vendor's Hardware Device Interface?" (PNAOTVHDI)
|
The trademark policy for DAHDI is the exact same as it is for Asterisk
and other trademarks owned by Digium. For more details, see the
official trademark policy:
http://www.digium.com/en/company/view-policy.php?id=Trademark-Policy
| Quote: |
2) In the article you posted you reference more than just a simple
name change. How will this affect the use of 3rd party cards, e.g.
Sangoma. Is Digium committed to keeping DAHDI as open as Zaptel,
making it easy for 3rd party vendors to piggy-back their drivers onto
the architecture? Is digium trying to make these cards obsolete in
Asterisk 1.6?
|
We are not doing _anything_ that will prohibit other hardware vendors
for making compatible drivers. For anyone that has drivers that work
with zaptel, changing them to work with DAHDI is as simple as doing a
search and replace in the code. We are changing things in the least
amount possible for the most part. The additional changes being made
don't affect the interfaces. Those changes are:
1) removing some extremely old digium hardware drivers that nobody uses
2) splitting up the code to distribute the kernel drivers separately
from the user space utilities, for easier packaging and distribution
3) removing some backwards compatibility stuff that was there for user
space applications compiled against older versions of zaptel. These
aren't needed as there are no older versions of DAHDI.
If you have any more questions, feel free to ask, and I will do my
best to clear up any confusion.
--
Russell Bryant
Senior Software Engineer
Open Source Team Lead
Digium, Inc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stotaro at totarotechn...
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 9:35 pm Post subject: [asterisk-users] Zaptel project being renamed to DAHDI |
|
|
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Russell Bryant <russell at digium.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On May 29, 2008, at 8:00 PM, Andrew Joakimsen wrote:
| Quote: | I am wondering two things:
1) What are the implications, trademark-wise, for 3rd party hardware
vendors? Will Digium crack down on the use of DAHDI name? Will some be
forced to call it the "Prominent North American Opensource Telephony
Vendor's Hardware Device Interface?" (PNAOTVHDI)
|
The trademark policy for DAHDI is the exact same as it is for Asterisk
and other trademarks owned by Digium. For more details, see the
official trademark policy:
http://www.digium.com/en/company/view-policy.php?id=Trademark-Policy
| Quote: |
2) In the article you posted you reference more than just a simple
name change. How will this affect the use of 3rd party cards, e.g.
Sangoma. Is Digium committed to keeping DAHDI as open as Zaptel,
making it easy for 3rd party vendors to piggy-back their drivers onto
the architecture? Is digium trying to make these cards obsolete in
Asterisk 1.6?
|
We are not doing _anything_ that will prohibit other hardware vendors
for making compatible drivers. For anyone that has drivers that work
with zaptel, changing them to work with DAHDI is as simple as doing a
search and replace in the code. We are changing things in the least
amount possible for the most part. The additional changes being made
don't affect the interfaces. Those changes are:
1) removing some extremely old digium hardware drivers that nobody uses
2) splitting up the code to distribute the kernel drivers separately
from the user space utilities, for easier packaging and distribution
3) removing some backwards compatibility stuff that was there for user
space applications compiled against older versions of zaptel. These
aren't needed as there are no older versions of DAHDI.
If you have any more questions, feel free to ask, and I will do my
best to clear up any confusion.
--
Russell Bryant
Senior Software Engineer
Open Source Team Lead
Digium, Inc.
|
This is just me reading between the lines and expecting Digium's
shrewd business activities.
1. I am no lawyer, but it seems that Zaptel's use in Asterisk is
significantly different than the Zaptel selling calling cards.
'Use for different goods or services
The registration of a trademark includes an indication of the goods or
services which it is intended to protect. This means that, in
principle, others are free to use the trademark for other goods or
services. However, there are some exceptions. As explained earlier, a
trademark always runs the risk that it loses its distinctive
character, which could mean that the trademark at some point is
annulled.
It is also an infringement if the use of the mark is such that it
harms the trademark holder in an unfair way. The reputation or image
that he has built could suffer from somebody elses use of the mark.
For example, the Dutch holder of the trademark King (who makes
peppermints) was able to successfully stop someone else from selling
condoms under the same trademark."
I don't see how Digium's use of Zaptel would hurt the reputation or
image of the Zaptel company selling calling cards, and therefore is no
infringement. Besides, what company is going to allow trademark
infringement for two years!?!?
2. We recently saw what happened with Google and the AdWord
"Asterisk". Usually, things like this that don't go over well when
done all at once are slipped in more slowly. There was huge backlash
at which point Digium changed it's position. I think it is more about
control. Control that will be phased in more slowly.
3. In two years, only the old school Asterisk people will even know
about Zaptel and Jim Dixon's Zapata Telephony Project.
4. I hope you are not referring to or removing support for Tormenta
cards, they are still used quite a bit.
5. "We are not doing _anything_ that will prohibit other hardware
vendors for making compatible drivers."
I am sure that is true but what happens when they use the trademarked
term DAHDI? AdWords getting banned, cease and desist letters for
trademark infringement for being "DAHDI" compatible. We have seen it
before with Asterisk as I stated before, it is just a matter of time
before it gets slipped in more slowly so instead of the whole
community enraged, a small minority will be affected one at a time.
Shrewd is not a bad word, in fact it can be good.
Thanks,
Steve Totaro |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jra at baylink.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:30 pm Post subject: [asterisk-users] Zaptel project being renamed to DAHDI |
|
|
On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 08:21:21PM -0500, Russell Bryant wrote:
| Quote: | 1) removing some extremely old digium hardware drivers that nobody uses
|
Nobody is a *really* small number.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
Those who count the vote decide everything.
-- (Joseph Stalin) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jra at baylink.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:36 pm Post subject: [asterisk-users] Zaptel project being renamed to DAHDI |
|
|
On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 10:35:44PM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
| Quote: | 5. "We are not doing _anything_ that will prohibit other hardware
vendors for making compatible drivers."
I am sure that is true but what happens when they use the trademarked
term DAHDI? AdWords getting banned, cease and desist letters for
trademark infringement for being "DAHDI" compatible. We have seen it
before with Asterisk as I stated before, it is just a matter of time
before it gets slipped in more slowly so instead of the whole
community enraged, a small minority will be affected one at a time.
|
Absolutely nothing.
No trademark owner has any legal right of any sort to control the
descriptive or editorial use of a trademarked name by other parties,
absent contractual agreement.
*They* have to say Kleenex-brand facial tissues, and so does their ad
agency, but *we* don't, and they can't change it.
They can only go after you for it if you use the mark in an infringing
fashion.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement
http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/infringe.html
"DAHDI-compatible" is a perfectly serviceable thing for a hardware
manufacturer to call a card or driver. And if Digium puts that string
into the actual *interface* (IE: you have to use that string to tag
calls to their ABI), then they can't have lawyers yell at you for that
either.
IANAL, but I've played one on the net for 25 years.
Trademark law, happily, is *much* more clear-cut than copyright law.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
Those who count the vote decide everything.
-- (Joseph Stalin) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stotaro at totarotechn...
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:27 pm Post subject: [asterisk-users] Zaptel project being renamed to DAHDI |
|
|
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 10:35:44PM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
| Quote: | 5. "We are not doing _anything_ that will prohibit other hardware
vendors for making compatible drivers."
I am sure that is true but what happens when they use the trademarked
term DAHDI? AdWords getting banned, cease and desist letters for
trademark infringement for being "DAHDI" compatible. We have seen it
before with Asterisk as I stated before, it is just a matter of time
before it gets slipped in more slowly so instead of the whole
community enraged, a small minority will be affected one at a time.
|
Absolutely nothing.
No trademark owner has any legal right of any sort to control the
descriptive or editorial use of a trademarked name by other parties,
absent contractual agreement.
*They* have to say Kleenex-brand facial tissues, and so does their ad
agency, but *we* don't, and they can't change it.
They can only go after you for it if you use the mark in an infringing
fashion.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement
http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/infringe.html
"DAHDI-compatible" is a perfectly serviceable thing for a hardware
manufacturer to call a card or driver. And if Digium puts that string
into the actual *interface* (IE: you have to use that string to tag
calls to their ABI), then they can't have lawyers yell at you for that
either.
IANAL, but I've played one on the net for 25 years.
Trademark law, happily, is *much* more clear-cut than copyright law.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
Those who count the vote decide everything.
-- (Joseph Stalin)
|
Ok so you addressed half of my point....
How about Google AdWords? Do you think they will get in the middle of
a legal battle or just pull the ads? Will you have to sign up for the
Digium Foodchain to use DAHDI in your ad?
The bottom line is to get (D)AHDI in there, Digium, owning the
trademark, and control of it.
Thanks,
Steve Totaro |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tzafrir.cohen at xorco...
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:45 pm Post subject: [asterisk-users] Zaptel project being renamed to DAHDI |
|
|
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 04:30:42PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 08:21:21PM -0500, Russell Bryant wrote:
| Quote: | 1) removing some extremely old digium hardware drivers that nobody uses
|
Nobody is a *really* small number.
|
So let's check what these are.
Two drivers were deprecated: wcusb and torisa. wcusb is a driver from a
device Digium used to produce: the S100U, which is a single-port FXS USB
device.
I have not heard of any recent clone of that. I do not recall any actual
"support" question about such a device in the asterisk lists or IRC
channels. It could be that some of Digium's customers still have them,
but then this is Digium's problem. Do you have one?
Next is torisa. This is the driver to the original Tormanta (sp?) card
of the Zapata Telephony project. An impressive (for the time) dual-span
ISA card.
The driver torisa was accidentally boken on the transission from 1.4.7
to 1.4.8 . I think it was only fixed on 1.4.9 . There were some bug
reports about similar problems with tor2, but not a single report about
torisa.
IIRC there were some previous occasions where either that driver or its
utilities were broken and not a single bug report was filed.
So if someone has such a card, then as far as I'm concerened, they can
go to ...
Zaptel 1.2 (which remain in bug-fix mode and still has those two
drivers).
Fair enough?
--
Tzafrir Cohen
icq#16849755 jabber:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com
+972-50-7952406 mailto:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com
http://www.xorcom.com iax:guest at local.xorcom.com/tzafrir |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Search
