Session Start: Fri Sep 19 13:41:04 2003 Session Ident: #kannel [13:41] * Now talking in #kannel [13:41] * Topic is 'Kannel - WAP and SMS Gateway - http://www.kannel.org' [13:41] * Set by ChanServ on Tue Sep 02 20:01:10 [13:46] * paulkeogh has joined #kannel [13:50] hello everyone, this is due to start in 5 minutes ? [13:51] yep [13:51] Hi Paul [13:51] hi stipe [13:57] I guess we'll have another 5m for those who rush in lately [13:57] I don't see Alexander here, and Alex Judd too [13:59] * Nexxxus is now known as IllimarReinbusch [13:59] Bruno, are you there? [14:02] pong [14:02] hi [14:03] ok, what about Alex Malysh? [14:04] Alex needs some minutes more. Ok who else *should* be on board? [14:04] anyone from ex-WapIT? [14:05] im not developer, but heavy user, can i stick around too? [14:05] * Malysh has joined #kannel [14:05] hi all [14:05] ahhhhh [14:06] ok, now are we ready to start? [14:06] sorry , i'm busy for 5 minutes, but u can start i will read all things bit later , sorry ... [14:07] anyone going to Geneva ? [14:07] for what? [14:07] GSM Conference? [14:07] yes [14:07] when? [14:08] * Looking up IllimarReinbusch user info... [14:08] its october 12 to 18 I think, it only happens once every 4 years, its supposed to be like cebit for telecoms [14:09] ok, seems interesting. I'll try to make it, but I have some work in the US before this and schedule may be overlapping. [14:10] Ok, back to our orginal topic. We want to talk about the Kannel license and how the development in the organization/group should continue [14:10] Unfortunatly there seems no one from the Apache group. I have invited them via the Incubator project group. [14:10] Ok, as all may know Kannel has a BSD-style license. [14:11] I guess we want to keep it this way? Am I right? [14:11] absolutely [14:11] yes, i guess [14:11] Personally I see the following advantages from the BSD-style license: [14:12] 1. Allowing participating companies, like ANAM, GNI, Wapme, etc to incorporate Kannel into commercial products [14:13] 2. Large companies who may thing of integrate Kannel as SMS, WAP, MMS Gateway into their Application Server suites (like IBM, Sun or Oracle) like this BSD-style licensing model more than GPL or LGPL, right? [14:13] So the chance to get Kannel "bigger and better" by having commercial enterprises attracted to participate in the project is an strategic aim we should follow on. [14:14] Mainly the stategy of the Apache Group can be taken as roadmap IMO. [14:14] Agree. One question though - is'nt libxml LGPL ? [14:15] hmmm? checking... [14:15] no, it's under the MIT License, see http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html [14:16] which seems very liberal [14:16] My concern is that if Kannel uses components that are licensed differently, the effectively Kannel is restricted to the [14:17] most restrictive of the licences [14:17] yep, that's a concern we have to take care of. [14:17] currently we have hard linked dependecy to libxml2 only AFAIK. [14:17] what about iconv? [14:17] yes, libxml2 is the only one. [14:18] do we depend on libxml2 at all ? [14:18] Biggest dependency is the WML compiler [14:18] stipe: you know one disavantage of BSD ? (I'm not complaining, just showing the facts) [14:19] tell [14:19] alex: yes, for the WAP part of Kannel. [14:19] Micr0s0ft's Mobile Information Service (Server?) [14:19] they use some of my EMI code inside ;) [14:20] bruno: ?? didn't get the point [14:20] in the beginning, when I added keepalive support for emi2... they "borrowed" the code [14:21] do they include the copyright and attribution notices ? [14:21] are kannel new bsd licence or old one ? [14:21] davipt: i think it's ok, as long copyright included [14:21] we are using the new, right ? [14:23] are we agreed on maintaining a BSD style licence - or does someone want to propose a new one ? [14:23] bruno: new? I just said Kannel has a BSD-style license (mainly close to the Apache Software License 1.1). [14:24] i see only one BSD lic. here at www.opensource.org ? [14:24] old bsd is the one with the advertising, so i guess we are using the new one [14:24] paul: we do have agreement of having the license *as is*, minor changes towards Apache Software License may apply. [14:24] what is the impact of the minor changes ? [14:24] bruno: Does MS reference anywhere that the software is based on Kannel or on derived work from WapIT Ltd.? [14:25] because wapit doesn't exists [14:25] paulkeogh: I agree with BSD or Apache one's, as both are permissive for commercial support. [14:25] and anyone can grab kannel sources and use it without any need to tell that was derived from kannel [14:25] stipe: do you think micr0s0ft would announce they use bsd code inside ? never!. [14:26] stipe: can you tell us the differences between BSD and APache ? [14:26] bruno: so, how do you know they do? [14:26] stipe: because I know one of the responsables for MIS and he "thanked" me for the code. (and I didn't care at all) [14:26] bruno: see at http://www.opensource.org. It's pretty the same, only that ASL requires to state inside product that is based on work from the Apache group and that the derived products are disallowed to be named something similiar like Apache. [14:27] they're ok doing that [14:27] i like the apache "brand" :-) [14:27] bruno: so we (or legaly correct WapIT) could sue them for using the code and breaking the license. [14:27] paul: me too ;) [14:28] * stipe waives for attention [14:28] +1 from me for asl [14:28] ok, it's the debian's guideline 4: you must rename your derived code [14:28] Now, as we agree that BSD-style license should remain and we move towards ASL, right? [14:28] +1 for moving towards ASL from me too [14:29] guys, I'l bbl, going to lunch [14:29] bruno: now, this is relly important. [14:29] Ask microsoft to buy you lunch :-) [14:29] * stipe scratches his had for Bruno's appetite ;) [14:29] but with asl we ve a problem that Kannel Foundation just doesn't exists ... [14:30] right [14:30] that's the next question we have to discuss here [14:30] We have mainly two volatile options from here: [14:30] 1. Establish an own Kannel Software Foundation (KSF) [14:31] 2. Incubate into the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) as own project tree, like ie. Jakarta for the whole Java stuff [14:31] as always there are benefits from both variants [14:31] option 1 may be harder to establish, because we need all this organizational overhead to create and maintain. [14:31] I don't think KSF will work - we tried before and there was just not enough players to make it work. [14:32] paul: yep, that's why I thought option 2 into the discussion. [14:32] we *may* have enough players from ANAM, 3G LAB, Centrium, GNI, Wapme to have the own KSF I guess, but branding under ASF would be much easier. [14:33] most benefitial for putting Kannel as project into ASF is the following: [14:33] 1. using existent organizational infrastructure [14:33] agrred, we get all infrastr. for free ;) [14:33] 2. boost of recognization of Kannel in the software market [14:34] Apache is a well known and commercially accepted product. All projects that claim to be part of the Apache project hence are referenced with a good and reliable association. [14:34] Aarno: yet not comments from your side?!!!!!!!!!!! [14:35] No argument on the branding - what conditions must we meet to become an incubator ? [14:35] Has anybody read the formal incubation process steps I referenced via the URL in this session announcement? [14:35] heh, not all of them ... [14:35] main thing is to put the code under ASL ;) [14:36] see http://incubator.apache.org/process.html for details [14:36] Can we legally do that ? It means changing the licence from what's there already to ASL. Do you need the permission of the original licensee to do that? [14:36] we will some people from the Kannel group who will form the Kannel project responsible project steerling commetee [14:37] I would agree with asl, if changes are really minor. GNI has invested something to Kannel, so we ceatainly want to use code commercially [14:37] no, I think we would leave the license as is for the period where WapIT existed and can claim intelectual property on it. [14:37] aas: it's fine with asl [14:37] * yuryx has joined #kannel [14:37] I remember working on ISODE back in the early 90s and we set up the ISODE Consortium to bring the project on. This meant a license change for the code and we had to get the consent of all contributors to do that [14:38] for everything that is after the WapIT bankcrupcy we would have it changed into the ASL, which is mainly almost the same. (like I said, only advertising rules etc apply on top of it) [14:38] ih [14:38] sorry, hi [14:39] paul: right. We would require a wide consensus of all developers who have commited code after the point where WapIT did no longer exist. [14:39] yuryx: can you please change your nick to a more real name, thanks. [14:40] Then we have a codebase with different per-module licences ? [14:40] * yuryx has quit IRC (Client Quit) [14:40] * yury has joined #kannel [14:41] sorry, but my last name too long ) [14:41] paulkeogh: why? all parts of kannel are under bsd-style license? am I wrong ? [14:41] paul: no, I consider it more within a timeline. The code up to WapIT bankrupcy is under the BSD-style licence WapIT issues, after that we have something that could not be defined exactly(?!), and now we change it (with permissions of all contributors) to the ASL for (maybe) incubating to Apache. [14:42] alex: the problem is the change itself. [14:42] the question is how a change can be done with an copyright owner entity that could do this, but does not exist anymore. [14:42] but if all contributors agree with it , then we can change license to wahtever we want after wapit time? [14:43] yes, that's my understanding of it. [14:43] * stipe claims not to be an lawyer BTW ;) [14:44] Aarno: you may be close to ex-WapIT people. What do you thing of it? [14:46] I remember that dark said that all code published when WapIT went bust, are ok [14:46] which means what? [14:47] Wapit has no claim to it [14:47] right, but they still own the copyright ? [14:48] from a legal point of view, yes. [14:48] But the question is, how long does an non-existing entity (or it's legacy lawyers) can have claim on assets.? [14:48] They have licensed the code under BSD [14:48] good question. Probably varies from country to country. Anyone know a Finnish lawyer ? [14:50] Does the incubator guidelines have anything to say about bringing BSD licensed code into the process ? [14:50] I don't think so. [14:51] So WapIT has no claim on the code. And if the lawyers of WapIT have no claim on it anymore, then anybody can change the code (actually maybe even breaking the license) and hanving it change to whatever he likes. [14:51] sorry, it's maybe stupid question, but (imo) bsd license allow you to fork a codebase and make another one for it , when you tell , this codebase is based on XYZ? [14:51] THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO CHANGE IT! [14:52] alex: right. What's why I said we keep the notice that Kannel is *based* on code originally developed by WapIT. So we don't break the license formally, IMO. [14:53] that's was a case in ur proposal ... [14:53] yep [14:54] ok, so anyone disagrees that we keep WapIT copyright notice to conform with BSD-style license and change towards ASL (which is mainly the same) ???? [14:54] that means if we want we can just fork and get ASL for kannel if all developer agree... [14:55] yep. [14:56] we would have a middle step, where we change *now* into the ASL, but call it KSL ;) with copyright holder "Kannel Group", until we have either KSF or ASF pariticipation. [14:57] i disagree, KSF doesn't exists so it make no sense to do so (imo) ... [14:57] why do we need a middle step ? [14:58] we should just try to put our code to apache group and if it fine then change to asl otherwise to KSF, but KSF must exists then... [15:00] as long ksf doesn't exists it make no sense , because companies can break license w/o any problems ... [15:00] I said we'd move it first to "Kannel Group" not KSF, Kannel Group is hence defined as the group of Kannel developers individually. [15:01] I'd like to have this middle step for the time we are "hanging in the air" between KSF or ASF. [15:02] alex: I disagree, an "Kannel Group" group of inidividual entities is more of a legal thread then a WapIT that does not exist anymore. [15:03] anyway, since we are under BSD-style, companies are allowed to have closed source spin-offs. They should be only forced to remain the copyright notice claims. [15:03] oops, sorry ... i ve mixed to ksf and kannel group :( [15:04] i thought it's the same ... [15:04] no, the "Kannel Group" is defined as the atctive, contributing developers; the KSF is a legal body of it's own. [15:05] yep, i got it now ... [15:05] paul: got it too? [15:08] yes, i got it [15:13] ok. So we agree that we change the license into ASL-style with "Kannel Group" as the copyright owner of the code after WapIT, right? [15:14] * stipe misses still some comments about KSF vs. ASF project, please comment [15:15] agreed [15:16] Wait a minute. I am waiting comments from Andreas [15:16] ok, we're here for a while ;) [15:22] I think Andreas needs more data about ASL license before he can decide. I can somebody email me more details [15:22] aarno: you can find everything on http://www.apache.org [15:23] as I said, ASL is BSD-style too, just with a couple of additions towards advertisement and branding protection. [15:23] So when we have an official vote about the license ? [15:25] I want to have Andreas' vote first ;) [15:25] The license would be the one I sent to the list with subject "[RFC-IMPORTANT] Changing copyright owner" some days ago [15:25] I'd like to have a vote at the beginning of next week, let's say Monday? [15:26] We have possitive votes for this ASL-like license from Alexander, Paul, and me. [15:27] Monday would be ok for me [15:28] ok, so what is your vote Aarno? [15:28] your vote should not depend on Andreas, IMO. [15:29] I would be +1, but you know, Andreas has a vote, too. [15:29] yep, that's ok. [15:29] and Alexei, too, I think [15:29] ok, so far so good. We have (almost all) with positive votes for changing to my proposal. [15:30] What about the decission if we want to have an own foundation (KSF) or move towards ASF membership? [15:31] i think, we need some time to read a things on incubator.apache.org ... [15:32] right, so how about having the IRC session re-do on Monday? [15:32] paul: is this ok for you too? [15:32] ok, i'll try and read it over the weekend [15:33] ok, so I'll announce a follow-up IRC session on monday afternoon. [15:33] yep [15:34] ok [15:34] I guess we'll setup the meeting a bit later, so people from the US have it easier (timezone issue) and Bruno can have it's lunch before it ;)) [15:34] ;) [15:34] * stipe would like to thank all developers that have joined!!!! [15:34] Have a great week-end! [15:35] thanks, u too ... [15:35] (and keep writing code for Kannel at week-end!) ;) [15:38] yury: i ve looked in ur patch posted to ML [15:38] * IllimarReinbusch has quit IRC ("User pushed the X - because it's Xtra, baby") [15:39] yury: it's not needed to swap bites in octet string for ucs2 [15:40] yury: ucs2 at least in smpp is UCS2-BE... [15:41] but I get the wrong message without swapping [15:42] yury: then ur input was wrong ... [15:43] yury: ur msgdata should be UCS2-BE too [15:43] I must encode message into UTF-16BE instead of UTF-16LE? [15:44] ok but what about the FE FF bytes ? [15:45] yury: these must be gone [15:45] yury: but normally it's done in smsbox , just look in it [15:47] but i guess, it would be a good workaround for boxes that send it to bearerbox [15:47] back [15:47] Ahh Bruno [15:47] too late ;) [15:48] yep. [15:48] Bruno, we just finished the discussion. I'll put a log of the session to an URL and announce in the devel@ list where to find. [15:49] main result has been: all (except Andreas, which did not vote yet) have been +1 for changing the LICENSE text as in my proposal from this week. [15:50] and: everyone should make himself familiar with the Apache Incubator issues at http://incubator.apache.org and we meet again on monday in the IRC room. [15:50] On monday we should have a decission if we move towards KSF or ASF. [15:55] you'd better remove my m$ lines ;) [15:55] I'm +1 for apache [15:55] why? I announced that this session is going to be logged ;) [15:55] great. [15:55] noprob [15:55] ;) [15:56] We hay have this kick their ass ;) [16:01] Malysh: sorry, but what you mean about the attached patch? [16:14] * yury has quit IRC ("Client Exiting") [16:44] * Disconnected Session Close: Fri Sep 19 16:44:19 2003