[arm-allstar] Where's Waldo?

Fri Jul 7 18:19:56 EDT 2017

Except that under the terms of the GPL (which Asterisk is licensed under),
you do not have the right to say that.  GPL is very clear on this.  If you
distribute the binaries (which you do as part of the HamVOIP distribution),
you are required to make the source code available upon request.  Most
projects take the step of making the source code available to everyone,
usually via a version control repository (subversion, git, mercurial, cvs,
whatever the case may be), but no matter what, if someone asks you are
REQIRED under the terms of the GPL to provide that source code - that is
*YOUR* source code, that YOUR binary is built on - not the upstream source.

Doug, I am new to the AllStar community, but I am not new to the open source
world.  What you are doing is a direct violation of the GPL, and companies
have had to pay major settlements for exactly this issue in the past.  I've
enjoyed using your ARM version, as it seems to have a lot of functionality
that the DIAL ARM image does not.  But, you are not complying with the terms
of the GPL that Asterisk is licensed under, and therefore that has me
seriously considering rethinking the use of this software.

Now I understand why someone recently got flamed on the Facebook AllStar
page for using your image.

Plus, you say you have explained your reasons before, but a Google Search
for arm-allstar source only pops up a bunch of people asking about it, but
no reasoning why it's not being distributed to those who have received the
binaries - as is required by the GPL.  And the reason no one has ever
submitted a patch is the simple fact that no one can modify their software,
BECAUSE you don't release the source!  It does no good to patch the Dial
source, when you are using your binaries.

Jeremy, NQ0M

-----Original Message-----
From: arm-allstar [mailto:arm-allstar-bounces at hamvoip.org] On Behalf Of
"Doug Crompton via arm-allstar"
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 4:10 PM
To: ARM Allstar <arm-allstar at hamvoip.org>
Cc: Doug Crompton <wa3dsp at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [arm-allstar] Where's Waldo?

Let me just say this question has been answered several times before. There
are reasons at this time to NOT release source. If someone does not like
that the source for Acid the base of all Allstar variants is freely
available. If you see a problem or fix a problem based on that code it most
certainly could be incorporated into our code. To date no one has submitted
any code to us! This list is for those having issues with the hamvoip code
and we always welcome ideas and suggestions for improvements and we do take
then into consideration. We also very promptly fix any problems unlike other
variants. Unlike on other forums anyone who starts whining about we should
do this or that will be moderated period. The rest of the readers to not
want to hear that. If you do not like that then go elsewhere. Allstar code
is VERY complex and convoluted. It is sometimes referred to as "spaghetti
code." We are working hard to improve that and the overall efficiency of the
code and I believe we have done a great job so far.

*73 Doug*

*WA3DSP*

*http://www.crompton.com/hamradio <http://www.crompton.com/hamradio>*

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 4:33 PM, "K1RA - Andy Z via arm-allstar" <
arm-allstar at hamvoip.org> wrote:

> This note dovetails off my original Nano Interface thread which you 
> can revisit, but as it touches on more than that I chose to re-title. 
> I've been following Allstar ARM group over the past several years and 
> read the strides as well as trials and tribulations of bring the new 
> system together.  Much has been accomplished by a very few individuals 
> and they are to be commended.  And although I fully appreciate the 
> efforts put into FOB conversion by the community, I think those who 
> continue to jump on the soapbox and say "they are only $3, just buy a
bunch and hack away at it"
> are totally missing the point.  I've gone through several of the 
> mod-FOB processes successfully, but still despise it.  Sure I could 
> buy converted ones, but FOBs have no processing power or A/D like a 
> Nano, which I desire.  Others have their own reasons for wishing for 
> something better or shying away from the mod-FOB status quo. I've seen 
> enough to know that there is always another way regardless of the 
> opinions or projections of others.  Besides that, none of us should 
> have to justify why we wish to use any particular hardware or 
> software.  If we have the wherewithal to build and integrate it into a
system, why shouldn't we?
>
> Let me try to put the issue into perspective with this purely 
> fictional story.  There was once this group of individuals who saw 
> greatness in a certain open, software project, but wanted to migrate 
> away from the Entel PC desktop platform on which it was built.  They 
> wished to leverage LEG processors to accomplish running a certain 
> software application.  The
> (giants) Entel folks did what they knew best and preached all the 
> benefits of their system configuration.  They said you can't have it 
> any other way, its not easy or costs too much to do it any other way.  
> The LEG folks had their reasons for migrating, be it smaller foot 
> print, less power consumption, or less expensive equipment costs.  But 
> initially, rather than helping the LEG team get their idea off the 
> ground, the Entel folks said, just go buy a cheaper ATOM processor 
> based motherboard.  Those take less power than a desktop PC.  Also, 
> there are smaller form factor mini-ATX boxes and everything is 
> integrated, sound, P.S. network, etc.  There is no need to 
> build/solder anything its all plug & play.  Why not just suck it up 
> and do it our way?  Now the LEG guys were determined and pushed onward 
> with their implementation.  LEG continued to press Entel regarding 
> their implementation to better help them understand the inner working 
> of the Entel project, but those requests seemed only to be answered 
> with more questions and status-quo responses.  Maybe Entel finally saw 
> the light and helped LEG make greater strides and then again, maybe they
didn't. Who would you more relate to, the Entel group or the LEG group?
>
> As some may be able to relate, as a ham, an engineer and all around 
> tinker I have my own ideas on what I'd like to accomplish and how.  
> I've identified hardware I wish to leverage and incorporate in certain
tasks.
> There is software I'd like to bring to fruition to solve certain problems.
> I see open source projects ripe for the tweaking to meet my needs.  
> When some one or group keeps touting this is the only way to do it, or 
> shows a lack of appreciation for helping to expand the knowledge or 
> art of others, that is irksome. I understand no one is under any 
> obligation to help anyone these days, but I gravitated towards ham 
> radio at a very young age because of the openness and sharing I found 
> among the community when it came to helping newcomers advance their 
> knowledge and skills.  The open source hardware and software, maker 
> and DIY groups today follow that same line of thought, which I fully 
> embrace both in my work and hobby communities.  In our ham community I 
> would hope others would be willing to share the knowledge they have, 
> to push the envelope forward and encourage and assist newcomers to get 
> more involved.  Put egos and embarrassment aside and help them to build
off the backs of giants.
>
> Now a direct request to the developers of Allstar ARM. Where's Waldo? 
> Can you please post the source code for this Allstar ARM project? Good 
> or bad, clean or dirty, baked or half-baked, in use or not yet in use.  
> Are you in need of assistance doing this? i.e. setting up a 
> Sourceforge or GitHub repository? I would be glad to assist.  I use 
> other ham projects (SvxLink, GNURadio, KiwiSDR, WSJT, HAMShield, 
> fldigi) and see numerous others published through those repositories 
> and I've yet to understand the reluctance regarding not posting a 
> project of this magnitude.  Isn't your system built on Copyleft software?
>
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html
>
> I've read Allstar ARM software is only alpha, or beta or a release 
> candidate and not ready for prime-time, but I don't recall seeing 
> anything in copyleft that relieves anyone of the obligation and 
> responsibility of providing source of derivative works given a certain 
> state of one's development cycle.  Then again, maybe ARM is all 
> proprietary and commercial software and I'm totally off base and therefore
sorry I asked.
>
> I understand we all have other obligations, family matters, personal. 
> work, etc. but it would seem that posting the source should be a #1 
> priority, if not from day one.  This would ensure the project doesn't 
> suffer death due to the sole one or two developers having to bow out 
> of development for whatever reasons.  It would surely allow other 
> interested individuals to begin to spin up and potentially contribute 
> and continue the life of this project, if not also provide for other
opportunities.
>
> 73
>
> andyz - K1RA
> http://k1ra.us/
>
> p.s. - I would have rather spent my time looking at and writing source 
> code than this email _______________________________________________
>
> arm-allstar mailing list
> arm-allstar at hamvoip.org
> http://lists.hamvoip.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/arm-allstar
>
> Visit the BBB and RPi2/3 web page - http://hamvoip.org
>
>
_______________________________________________

arm-allstar mailing list
arm-allstar at hamvoip.org
http://lists.hamvoip.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/arm-allstar

Visit the BBB and RPi2/3 web page - http://hamvoip.org