[Bug 177583] Review Request: zaptel-kmod
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Sep 21 21:56:26 UTC 2006
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: zaptel-kmod
kpfleming at digium.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
CC| |kpfleming at digium.com
------- Additional Comments From kpfleming at digium.com 2006-09-21 17:56 EST -------
I'll try to address your concerns, but understand that we fight this battle
every day with people who don't agree with our dual licensing model (or dual
licensing in general), so I don't expect to change your minds :-)
In regards to the question about Zaptel being GPL and not being usable under
other licenses, that is not true. There are parts of Zaptel that are most
definitely not derivatives of the Linux kernel and we want to retain the ability
to license those parts of Zaptel outside the GPL. Stating that 'Zaptel is GPL'
is somewhat of a simplification, because in reality you mean that 'the Zaptel
distributed by Digium via their web/FTP servers is GPL', but we have the ability
to distribute it via other means as well.
As far as the 2.4 kernel issue goes, we definitely do consider that to be a
concern, because we have limited kernel developer resources and don't wish to
spend their time duplicating efforts, and there is still rather a large
population of users running Zaptel on 2.4 kernels (we have received bug reports
as recently as this week regarding new drivers we have not building/installing
on 2.4). However, that is secondary to the licensing issue in any case.
I can tell you that it is highly unlikely that Digium would decide to change the
licensing model for Zaptel just so that it can be incorporated into Fedora
Extras. While I don't wish to start a flamewar, I do find it somewhat curious
that Debian does package Zaptel and they generally seem to be even more
restrictive regarding licensing that most other distributions are... but I
understand that your concern here is not the licensing issue, but our
non-interest in pushing the Zaptel drivers upstream into the mainline kernel.
I've added myself to the CC list for this issue; I'm happy to answer your
questions and try to provide any technical assistance required, but the
licensing issues are what they are.
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
More information about the package-review