Hello Adam,
Thank you so much for taking the time to write to me. I can
understand your concerns; let me see if I can address them.
Matt,
Sourceforge.net is exclusively for hosting software whose licensing
terms meet the OSI's definition of Open Source:
http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php
Your licensing terms include the following, which is not compliant
with the OSI definition:
Usage Restrictions
In addition to the restrictions of the LGPL, the following
restrictions apply: ... OrderlyCalls may not be used to provide or
augment call queuing without the prior written permission of Orderly
Software.
I am familiar with the OSI definitiion. I've read it again, but I can't
work out exactly how asking for permission contravenes this definition.
Perhaps you could clarify with a more specific reference?
Here's the relevant section from the OrderlyCalls licence file
(available at http://orderlycalls.sourceforge.net ):
-----------------------
In addition to the restrictions of the LGPL, the following restrictions
apply:
1) OrderlyCalls MAY NOT be used to automate 'cold-calling'.
Orderly Software takes a strong stand against SPAM. If you wish to use
OrderlyCalls to call people without their prior consent, you MUST write to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] explaining why you need to do this. At our discretion
we MAY decide to issue permission in specific cases.
2) OrderlyCalls MAY NOT be used to provide or augment call queuing without
the prior written permission of Orderly Software.
The reason for this is that Orderly Software provides an advanced queue
management system called OrderlyQ, that lets callers hang up and call back
when they reach the front of the queue. OrderlyQ is patent-pending,
and we do NOT allow the use of OrderlyCalls to provide similar
functionality.
By adding this restriction, we are erring on the side of caution, so if you
want to use OrderlyCalls in conjunction with call queuing, but you are not
intending to emulate OrderlyQ, you MUST write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
explain how you intend to use OrderlyCalls.
We anticipate that we will be very happy to give consent in most cases.
-----------------------
So my first question is, are you objecting to the first usage
restriction regarding SPAM calls? We feel this restriction is very
important as we sincerely do not wish OrderlyCalls to become a nuisance
to anyone. Or are you objecting to the second restriction only?
The purpose of the second restriction is to ensure that OrderlyCalls is
not used to infringe the intellectual property embodied in OrderlyQ,
even by accident, with a view to avoiding litigation and other troubles
*before* they can happen. OrderlyQ is a very specific application, and
we would only consider witholding permission in cases of clear
conflict. We do not wish to restrict the use of OrderlyCalls beyond
these boundaries, and by asking people to seek permission before they
make the investment of coding, we can co-operatively ensure and verify
that their plans do not involve such a conflict.
This is to the developer's advantage, as once we've issued permission,
the developer can ensure that he/she is not exposed to litigation risk
from us. We feel that specifically eliminating this 'grey area' as
early as possible in the development process is therefore to everyone's
benefit, hence the restriction. I really don't expect we'll be
witholding permission very often, if ever.
While I understand your motivation and empathize with the plight of
open-source business, unfortunately you must either:
a) remove this restriction
- or -
b) remove your project from sourceforge.net
Please take action soon so that this matter does not need to be
escalated to the sourceforge.net admins.
I'm more than happy to refer to sourceforge.net for guidance on this
matter, and will do so myself if necessary, however I know they're very
busy people, and I'd hate to bother them inappropriately. I also need
more information on the specifics of your objection before I can take
action.
Might I suggest therefore that for the moment we continue this
discussion in a spirit of open and friendly co-operation, with a view to
finding a solution together, and thereby avoid adding to their workload?
I'd also like to suggest that we move this discussion to the
OrderlyCalls mailing list, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
as I feel this is a more appropriate place for the discussion, and I
don't want to burden the inboxes of the subscribers to Asterisk lists
inappropriately. You might also choose to respond privately with your
concerns; in any case I'd be happy to post the resolution of this issue
more widely once we've worked out together exactly what that will be.
For the meanwhile, if you're concerned about this issue, and considering
using OrderlyCalls with call queues, please don't be scared, and do just
ask!
Many thanks,
Matt King, M.A. Oxon.
Managing Director, Orderly Software Ltd.
Author, OrderlyCalls and OrderlyQ.
_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
