ALERT OSS False Advertising Decision

[wardmundy]

From a little birdie...

Court affirms it's false advertising to claim software is Open Source when it’s not

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a lower court decision concluding what we’ve always known: that it’s false advertising to claim that software is “open source” when it’s not licensed under an open source license.

opensource.org

 

[wardmundy]

Anyone seen any PBXact source code? Asking for a friend...

​

​ ​

​

​ Join us in our upcoming roadshows to learn how Sangoma can help grow your business into the future. If you are a reseller ready to capitalize on the growing UC market and leverage the cloud to deliver business value, this is your chance! We will introduce you to the Sangoma Open Source portfolio, new developments in the company, and their relevance to your business. We will also share key insights into the growth of UC among small to medium businesses, as well as brief you on Sangoma’s latest offerings in UC. There will be a space for networking with canapés and beverages.​

​

​ New Orleans April 12th - 12 PM Ruth Chris Steak House​ Register Now​ Houston April 13th - 11 AM Capital Grille​ Register Now​ San Antonio April 14th - 11 AM Southerleigh Fine Food & Brewery​ Register Now​

​

​ Agenda​ Registration Sangoma's Open Source Portfolio: Asterisk, FreePBX, PBXact Cloud Solutions SIP Trunking and Fax Solutions IP Phones Partnering with Sangoma

 

[Samot]

Anyone seen any PBXact source code? Asking for a friend...

Yes because it is literally the same source code for FreePBX. PBXact is what you get when you don't want to piecemeal support and licenses. Might have some extras but the core of it is FreePBX.

 

[hawk#1]

I requested Sangoma provide a link to the source code so I can see how to integrate my own apps as they claim, but I am not holding my breath waiting. Maybe I should have asked them to produce the open source license since they advertise it as open source software

 

[Samot]

I requested Sangoma provide a link to the source code so I can see how to integrate my own apps as they claim, but I am not holding my breath waiting. Maybe I should have asked them to produce the open source license since they advertise it as open source software

It is on Github. There is an entire developer section to show how to write modules. The source code is sitting out there.

 

[hawk#1]

Do you have an actual link to the source code?. I searched Github for PBXact source code and out of all the results found none of them are linked to the source code. I don't think the source code is even posted on Github.

 

[Samot]

Do you have an actual link to the source code?. I searched Github for PBXact source code and out of all the results found none of them are linked to the source code. I don't think the source code is even posted on Github.

You guys really need to read up on PBXAct. One more time: It is FreePBX with commercial support and the commercial modules licensed. The one thing it has that FreePBX doesn't? A module for Version Control and Branding.

So all the OSS parts of PBXAct are FreePBX.

 

[Tonyclewis]

I think where Ward is going at is they can not call PBXact Open Source if the whole release of PBXact does not have a approved open source license based on this court ruling. What is PBXact actually released under as a license.

PBXact as you just stated is not sold alacart meaning it comes bundled with a bunch of commercial modules along with open source FreePBX so how can PBXact be Open Source. But according to the recent court ruling that would be false advertising.

 

[Samot]

I think where Ward is going at is they can not call PBXact Open Source if the whole release of PBXact does not have a approved open source license based on this court ruling. What is PBXact actually released under as a license.

PBXact as you just stated is not sold alacart meaning it comes bundled with a bunch of commercial modules along with open source FreePBX so how can PBXact be Open Source. But according to the recent court ruling that would be false advertising.

So when PBXAct was created and released under your watch as CTO. What license did you use for it?

 

[Tonyclewis]

A non open source license which it appears to still be under but that is not the issue at hand here. The issue is the claim now of it being Open Source based on the email Ward is referencing.

FYI I was never CTO. I was COO.

 

[Samot]

A non open source license which it appears to still be under but that is not the issue at hand here. The issue is the claim now of it being Open Source based on the email Ward is referencing.

FYI I was never CTO. I was COO.

So an email about three items in Open Source portfolio talk means they are all licensed as open source?

The one thing about the original article was the defendant was marketing their solution as a free and open source drop in replacement for NEO4J. They were using NEO4J in their names and marketing. Thet were causing confusion. That is what the court order mainly was over. Not much on OSS license types.

So what we would need to see is actual marketing and sales where PBXAct is being marketed and offered as a 100% free and open source or even open source. Does that exist or is all we have is an event announcement that can be passed off as poorly worded?

 

[kenn10]

@Samot You're doing it again. Who really cares? On this forum, so long as IncrediblePBX remains open source, that's what matters.

 

[Tonyclewis]

It’s being marketed as Open Source based on this email that is all about Open Source road show and the subject like even says Open Source. That is false advertising and would lead to users who have a copy of PBXact to be given all the source code that makes up PBXact. You can not have a product you state is open source but when asked for source be told you only get some of the source code as they would mean PBXact is not open source hence the false advertising.

 

[Samot]

@Samot You're doing it again. Who really cares?

Doing what again, exactly? I guess Ward cares, he brought it up.

 

[hawk#1]

You guys really need to read up on PBXAct. One more time: It is FreePBX with commercial support and the commercial modules licensed. The one thing it has that FreePBX doesn't? A module for Version Control and Branding.

So all the OSS parts of PBXAct are FreePBX.

They post it and advertise it as Open Source, so I want a copy of the source code for what they advertise as open source. Since they do not post the PBXact source code, there is no way of knowing if the source code is the same for PBXact and Freepbx. The only thing we have is you stating it is the same source code. Sorry but I have no reason to believe what you state no matter how many times you say it

 

[kenn10]

Doing what again, exactly?

Arguing for the sake of argument

 

[billsimon]

there is no way of knowing if the source code is the same for PBXact and Freepbx.

Sure there is, you can buy PBXact and look at the code. I have PBXact and can tell you it is the same code as FreePBX. If you really care, then call Sangoma and ask about it. I know you won't, because you don't really care, you're just amplifying (fake) controversy for no reason at all.

 

[wardmundy]

So, @billsimon, you're saying that everything in the PBXact bundle has available source code for everybody to use. That's what open means. 90% open isn't open. That would be fake open source to use your terminology. But, hey, what do I know, I've only been a lawyer for 50 years.

P.S. With open source software, you're not supposed to have to buy ANYTHING to get the source code. If you have to buy something, it's not FOSS.

P.P.S. You don't need a law license to figure this out. A little non-contorted mastery of the English language helps, however.

 

[billsimon]

Of course I am not arguing that all of PBXact is open source. I am saying the same thing that Samot is saying, but I feel like everyone here already understands that. Do you think Sangoma is really claiming or even implying that all of PBXact is open source? We all know that PBXact is based on FreePBX, the non-commercial parts of which are open source. I mean, if you're going to show your lawyer card here, then go ahead and litigate the issue and I guess we will see how it goes for them.

 

[Samot]

Arguing for the sake of argument

That is not what is happening here.