ALERT OSS False Advertising Decision

[Samot]

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

That is why I said you need to read up on it. Draw your own conclusion.

 

[Samot]

But, hey, what do I know, I've only been a lawyer for 50 years.

So you are saying this email gives you cause to take this to court? It is 100% false marketing and advertising? There are legalities that have been broken?

If so, take them to court and defend open source.

 

[wardmundy]

I'm saying Sangoma should clean up their act. Don't advertise stuff as open source that isn't. And I have told them so.

 

[Samot]

I'm saying Sangoma should clean up their act. Don't advertise stuff as open source that isn't. And I have told them so.

Let me be clear on this, if Sangoma is doing something wrong then they should have their feet held to the fire. Got absolutely no problem with that. However, over the six years PBXAct has been around it has been "Based on FreePBX" and no one has ever made a claim that it was open source. I have never seen the words "Open Source" on any PBXAct marketing materials.

That email is the first time I've seen PBXAct within the same sentence as open source. I'm working on the logic of a poorly worded email written by someone that should have known better and if this was approved by someone then that person needs to have a talking to.

I'm pretty sure if this was something that has been happening before this email and PBXAct material was throwing "open source" around we would have been having this discussion before this week and that email.

 

[Tonyclewis]

PBXact was actually created in 2007 by my former company and was included in the sale to Sangoma so it’s been around a lot longer then 6 years and in the last year or so I have seen it mentioned under open source more and more from Sangoma. Look on the Sangoma website

 

[Tonyclewis]

 

[Samot]

OK, so this tells me that this is a commercial solution that gives you the flexibility of an open source PBX because many commercial PBXes do not do that. They don't let you install FOP2 or other third party programs. They don't let you write hooks into the PBX code, etc. For example, Switchvox vs PBXAct: which one gives you the same flexibility to do what you do with FreePBX? PBXAct, because Switchvox doesn't let you do such a thing.

My critic of that is, could be worded better. However, I in no way take that as "PBXAct is open source".

 

[Tonyclewis]

I am not here to argue on the internet but the whole point Ward was making from how I read this was that court ruling is very damn clear. You can not use Open Source in marketing a product if it is not license under an approved Open Source license. Nobody can dispute that based on the court ruling and Sangoma is violating this in numerous area. Heck the menu bar on their website list PBXact under Open Source. This is not the case of a single isolated email that says PBXact is open source. It’s vague and confusing in numerous places. For a large 250M a year company this type of confusion seems to be on purpose to confuse the market.

 

[Tonyclewis]

So this was just sent to me by someone who does not want to get pulled into this online.

Here is a graphic used by Sangoma after they bought VoIP Innovations about 2 years ago. Clearly showing PBXact under the UC solution with Switchvox.

And now this image which shows PBXact moved from under UC to Open Source. So back to the point here is recently there seems to be a shift in how PBXact is being marketed and it’s clearly showing it’s Open Source yet the software that makes up PBXact appears to be a mix of both Open Source and Closed Source which means it can not be Open Source as that is in violation of the clause in GPL about not being able to add additional restrictions to a license as doing so makes it not Open Source.

Link to presentation of the image below from Sangoma showing PBXact under Open Source. https://www.sangoma.com/wp-content/uploads/Sangoma-Corp-Brochure-Single-Pages-web.pdf

 

[krzykat]

Those graphics speak volumes. It doesn't appear to be an OOPS type of email, but a change in marketing direction. I'm sure Ward or Tony will correct me if I'm wrong here ... but there is a DEFINITE distinction between calling something "OSS" and "Based on OSS" ... They have gone from Based on to claiming that it is OSS.

 

[Samot]

Well got to admit, in the last 48 hours rock solid evidence has been gathered to show Sangoma is engaging false advertising practices. I will watch for the legal recourse and repercussions of these findings.

 

[wardmundy]

Well got to admit, in the last 48 hours rock solid evidence has been gathered to show Sangoma is engaging false advertising practices. I will watch for the legal recourse and repercussions of these findings.

Say what??? Don’t believe your lyin’ eyes.

 

[Samot]

Say what???

Well what was the point of all this? You posted that email in a thread about courts ruling about false advertising around OSS. As in marketing something as OSS when it is not. The claim implied here is that Sangoma is doing the same thing. Down to "I have asked for the code, lets see if I get it". Graphs and documents posted showing how PBXAct is all under open source but it really isnt open source.

So either Sangoma is doing false advertising that PBXAct is open source or they are not. Which is it?

 

[hawk#1]

So either Sangoma is doing false advertising that PBXAct is open source or they are not. Which is it?

Still waiting for anyone to provide a link to PBXact source code. Even @Samot has not been able to provide a copy of PBXact open source code. As other person mentioned, in open source, you don't have to purchase a product just to see the source code. A little common sense and reading what Sangoma has advertised and published should answer your question. Sangoma is falsely advertising and implying PBXact is Open Source.

 

[wardmundy]

I think where we are is (1) we need to find someone who has purchased PBXact with the understanding (documented here) that they would be provided the complete source code upon request, (2) filing a request with Sangoma to provide the complete source code, and (3) being prepared to file a federal or state civil claim seeking specific performance for the complete source code when Sangoma ignores or turns down the request.

NOTE: This is not legal advice. It is a plan of attack that I believe common sense suggests will lead to a favorable result in light of the plain language of the Ninth Circuit ruling. Perhaps @3CX would like some nice source code to add to their portfolio and to share with the rest of us. That would be a generous open source contribution.