IC-Talk VOIP PBX possible violation

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Mark,

> Many thanks for your email I note that there is a section missing from
> the reply sent which further stated:-
>
> ==============
>
> If you do not have a system presently then we can confirm the following
> software is present a very large proportion of which is unchanged from
> the publicly available source.
>
> Fedora Core3 base install
> Asterisk 1.2 (various versions)
> Zaptel & Libpri for Asterisk
> Bristuff from Junghanns
> AMP from Coelescent systems version 1.10.008
> SpanDSP Softfax software
> MySQL Server
> Apache Web Server
> PHP Support
> Perl and Asterisk Perl (AGI)
>
> The System Configuration web interface, Voices, Codec's, Dialplan,
> Caretaker and Licensing Engine are all proprietary or licensed items and
> are not public domain and hence are not available.
>
> ===============

Yes, you're right.  The person I was replying to did, in fairness, post
that bit to the list and it was me that omitted it in my reply.

> We do actively support the open source community and indeed do
> collaborate directly with the community or relevant companies and have
> either directly or indirectly contributed towards the advancements in
> the relevant projects. The project concerned is a hardware / software
> combination and we sell the systems as a whole with support and
> maintenance services. As the systems are locked down for access the
> licence is shipped and we have seals on the CD (contains the manuals
> for using the system) that is shipped that contain the appropriate
> warrant for the source access in compliance with section 3b however it
> would appear that the interpretation of this section appears to be
> ambiguous?
>
> b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
>     years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
>     cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
>     machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
>     distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
>     customarily used for software interchange; or,
>
> Our interpretation of this section was: "Accompany it with a written
> offer" the rest of this section being dependant on this and the 'any
> third party' would therefore be anyone who had our 'written offer'
> given that this is said within the same paragraph which usually in law
> binds them into the same context.

I understand your interpretation.

> Obviously if we have misinterpreted this then we are truly sorry but I
> am sure you can appreciate that this is misleading at best.

I can.  If only it was code instead of English!  :-)

I came to my interpretation, which, IANAL, etc., I accept may be
incorrect, due to 3(c):

    3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
    under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms
    of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the
    following:

        ...

        c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the
        offer to distribute corresponding source code.  (This
        alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and
        only if you received the program in object code or executable
        form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

So if a customer buys your system and receives binaries together with a
written offer under 3(b), and then passes just the binaries and the
written offer onto me, I'm an "any other" that doesn't have the hardware
or a serial number.

> I can clearly see that this issue could be raised several times and to
> save further confusion we will look to publish all the relevant source
> and packages on our website for all as soon as possible.

That's a great solution.  I sympathise with your position.  I'm been
following licensing questions, GPL ones specifically, for quite a while
on various lists and its really hard to get authorative answers on some
aspects.  That said, I've found a FAQ which I haven't noticed before
when I've been pondering this particular issue.

    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#RedistributedBinariesGetSource

    My friend got a GPL-covered binary with an offer to supply source,
    and made a copy for me. Can I use the offer myself to obtain the
    source?

    Yes, you can. The offer must be open to everyone who has a copy of
    the binary that it accompanies. This is why the GPL says your friend
    must give you a copy of the offer along with a copy of the
    binary---so you can take advantage of it.

An alternative you could consider is to follow 3(a) and ship the source
with the binaries, e.g. on another CD.  Then you'd have no
responsibility to provide the source to anyone that comes asking, owner
of the hardware or not.  It may cause less overheads for you.

Cheers,


Ralph.