[Serusers] Re: [Serdev] Porta Software vs. AG Projects [open letter]

[Dan Pascu]

I have only 2 things to say about this:

1. I saw no rejection of your requests. Just an attempt to figure how
   much of your claims were true and how much was exaggeration. But it
   seems if you didn't get you request fullfiled 100% in the first 5
   minutes, you consider that a rejection. I already said I have problems
   reading my email, so expect a delay in my replies.
   It seems to me that we are more willing to cooperate in solving this
   issue than you are, as you seem not to be willing to accept anything
   else than your way (even though we think the claims are exaggerated).
2. Please don't spread assumptions about who we are, what we do and what
   are our motivations. You have not the slightest idea what are you
   talking about and it will only make you look silly.


On Thursday 25 March 2004 01:01, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Unfortunately, all our attempts to solve mediaproxy copyright issue have
> failed. AG Projects rejected to put due credit to Porta into it. The AG
> confirms that all ideas in mediaproxy module came from the nathelper
> module, but refuses to include due respect to Porta.
>
> I think that it just have to be solved somehow, since for example, we,
> Porta Software, always have been respecting others' copyrights and
> licenses. While we use SER, Vodida B2BUA, FreeBSD and quite few other
> free software components in our commercial solutions we never pretend to
> our customers that we have written or invented any of them no matter how
> deeply we have to rewrite something to fit our needs. We provide full
> source code including our own modifications to our customers when the
> license requires that.
>
> Apart from that we always try to return our modifications and
> enhancements back to community. Excellent example is nathelper module
> and RTP proxy. While we could keep it in-house, we opted to make it
> available to the whole community under liberal GPL license.
>
> Unfortunately, folks like AG Projects, who don't have the aspiration to
> do something innovative, try to use somebody's else work to cash on it.
> This unfortunately happened with nathelper/rtpproxy. Once they had seen
> that those extensions are in demand they immediately released their own
> version of RTP proxy with better portability and some bugfixes but under
> their commercial license which prevented any free commercial use of it.
> Since RTP proxy is distributed under BSD-like license, we decided that
> it is not necessary to make any noise about it.
>
> But probably it didn't went as smooth as they had hoped, bugs in
> original RTP proxy were identified and fixed quickly, so that there
> probably were not that many customers who wanted to buy AG's version.
>
> Then they decided to cash on publicity: write GPL'ed module based on
> nathelper with some enhancements, but pretend that they hold a full
> copyright on this module. So that they can say loudly that they have
> invented it and can sell it under commercial license if they want
> without taking Porta who did the initial work into account. They found a
> good excuse for a separating their module out: I had asked them to send
> their patch to me before committing change into a nathelper module. Any
> experienced open source/free software person can confirms that such
> peer-review practice is common in open source projects, but AG took an
> offense. It was just an excuse in my opinion.
>
> OK, once their mediaproxy module had been released, I read its source
> code and found that in many places it bears "strange" resemblance to the
> nathelper. However, original nathelper copyright was striped and
> replaced with AG's copyright. I reported this fact to them, asking to
> put due Porta's copyright back, but they said that they have to
> investigate this question.
>
> After several days they replied that they had written mediaproxy module
> from scratch and there was no code taken verbatim from the nathelper
> module into mediaproxy module and asked me to show such piece of code.
> However, when I have shown them such piece of code they quickly
> responded (in private) that they would take this code out. But my main
> point was not to show some particular piece of code, but to show that
> mediaproxy module is just modifiend nathelper module. Modified to the
> degree when it is hard to see original code, but still "derived work" in
> legal terms.
>
> Moreover, they do confirm that they used nathelper source code as a
> reference for their work. In my opinion this gives us sufficient right
> to claim copyright on derived work.
>
> That's the whole story as we see it. Our legal department is currently
> investigating if the matters are sufficient enough for suing AG for
> copyright infringement. However, whatever they decide, I must say the
> following:
>
> - If folks like AG are tolerated by a community it will seriously reduce
> our (and probably others') incentive to release source code as free
> software. Respect is the only gain we as a company have from releasing
> our code/ideas as free software, if there will be many folks like AG,
> who will take our code/ideas, obfuscate it and say that they are the
> authors we won't get any respect. Obviously in such world we are better
> off to keep our code/ideas closed.
>
> - I am really frustrated by their "embrace and extend" tactics. This is
> the first time in my long free software life when somebody does
> something like that with my code/ideas.
>
> Regards,
>
> Maxim Sobolev
> Director of Product Management
> Porta Software Ltd
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serdev mailing list
> serdev at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev

-- 
Dan