Re: [Ekiga-devel-list] [info] Re: Ekiga INVITE requests are rejected by OpenIMS P-CSCF

[thomas schorpp <t schorpp gmx de>]

Respected Sirs and Madames of Fraunhofer FOKUS,
Dear Dragos, Dear Peter,

Dragos Vingarzan wrote:
> Dear Thomas,
>
>
> 1. You are right. However, I am sure that anyone can google "GPL" and
> find it. In any case, I have added a link now.
>
> About confusing users, I doubt it. The statement is:
>
> "Open IMS Core is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
> Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your
> option) any later version."
>
> Which part is confusing?

My kind thanks for Your clarification, please let me clarify myself:

Well, it is best marketing practice to hide possible collisions with 
a company's own intend on a product. I can see You using it.

> I do not agree with you that we should publish the full text of the
> license on the homepage. And the full text of the license can be found
> in the source code, where it should be. I looked on the Ekiga's homepage
> and you don't have it either.

Ekiga Project doesn't use any possible GPL colliding terms or so expressed intends,
so theres no need to have it.

> 2.
> a) You say "restriction" and I wonder if you actually read the
> paragraph. That paragraph is completely different from the license as it
> can be easily observed and it states:
>
> "Mandatory disclaimer, before any usage
>
> It has to be noted that this Open Source IMS Core System is not intended
> to become or act as a product in a commercial context! Its sole purpose
> is to provide an IMS core reference implementation for IMS technology
> testing and IMS application prototyping for research purposes, typically
> performed in IMS test-beds.
>
> Users of the Open Source IMS Core System have to be aware that IMS
> technology may be subject of patents and license terms, as being
> specified within the various IMS-related IETF, ITU-T, ETSI, and 3GPP
> standards. Thus all Open IMS Core users have to take notice of this fact
> and have to agree to check out carefully before installing, using and
> extending the Open Source IMS Core System, if related patents and
> licenses may become applicable to the intended usage context."
>
> We never use words like "restricted", but we just ask the users to take
> "note" that the project is "intended" for non-commercial,
> non-carrier-grade usage and should be only used in  a test-bed
> environment due to obvious security limitation because of the
> experimental nature of the project.

experimental lifecycle state is no point for such restrictions in OSS and 
proprietary SW-industry, it has never been, cause the SW product can only 
improve by use in full lifecycle which includes early release to customers to 
test field maturity, etc, so the product improvement cycle can begin.

there's no expressed concretization of Your disclaimer needed for me.
however, there're two possible concretizations:

1. the disclaimer is unneccesary cause already covered by GPL's warranty and 
liability exclude for products without license fee.
2. the disclaimer contains Your expressed forbid of commercial and production use 
colliding GPL's expressed intend and ruling for/of commercial use.

for me, 2. remains applicable.

> Then the 2nd part indicates that the implemented technologies COULD be
> patented! This has nothing to do with the GPL license! This is an extra
> warning that we chose to give to our users. I am sure that the GPL does
> not restrict this. If you disagree, please indicate how we are
> infringing on the GPL.
>
> The fact is that patents could be applied on everything and the GPL
> status of a certain implementation of that patented technologies does
> not exempt you from having to pay patent royalties for example. You
> could consult for example the RFC3669 on IPR claims on RFC standards for
> example.

sorry, as copyright holders, You and Your partners may surely preserve such rights, but not if 
You already released technologies and/or implementations publicly under GPL, besides not, 
cause You can't patent it 
later because it is state-of-the-art already by international patent laws.
such preservation collides the GPL cause patents inhibit major GPL terms.
possibly You could avoid this by charging license/patent-fees *after patenting* but then GPL 
requires You to provide warranty. what "warranty", that is lawyers workout ;)

> b) Please explain how we confuse "free" with "non-commercial".

You expressed (advised, whatever) You want non-commercial use but GPL allows commercial use. 
even if most GPL'd products are license free there can be no 
such restriction and in no case inheritable.

> 3. Again, I do not understand what you imply by "restriction for
> "software patents"". There is no restriction there, other than the GPLv2
> one.

see above.

> Best Regards,
> Dragos Vingarzan
> Peter Weik

Anyway, it is not to me to rule You about Your business.
This has been just analysis and critics in the hope it will be helpful and reflect my 
personal opinions, You're free to ask FSF for more comprehensive advise.
I'm surely not the first to question, too, many businesses fear so called "GPL Issues".

Best Regards,
Thomas Schorpp

> thomas schorpp wrote:
> > + GPL violations due to illegal license constructs and non-GPL
> > restrictions for "OpenIMS" from Fraunhofer Fokus Institute:
> >
> > http://www.openimscore.org/#license
> >
> > 1. no full text copy of GPL V2 on website, possibly intended to
> > confuse users for the further conditions:
> > 2. restriction for non-commercial use - illegal under GPL V2, license
> > author confuses "free" with "non-commercial"
> > 3. restriction for "software patents" - illegal under GPL V2
> >
> > guys, dont touch this until Fraunhofer Fokus gets this right.
> >
> > y
> > tom