[guardian-dev] jitsi's parent company BlueJimp becoming part of Atlassian

[Lee Azzarello]

how was your user experience with Linphone on the desktop?

-lee

On Friday, June 5, 2015, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at guardianproject.info>
wrote:

>
> What about Linphone? It seems a lot easier to use and setup, and is also
> multi-platform.  I think if there was a standard way to provision a SIP
> client
> using a URL, that would help a lot.
>
> Since otr4j is free software, we can just fork and ignore BlueJimp's CLA,
> as
> we have always done.  But it would be even better if all parties used a
> single
> fork, and we're working on that now. (that's the core idea of starting the
> otr4j/otrj4 repo)
>
> .hc
>
> Lee Azzarello:
> > Heya,
> >
> > I just picked up on this thread now, two months too late but I would
> > like to chime in about my support of ostel.co. I continue to support
> > the public service, which has 41K registered users and is going
> > strong. As you may know, end user support is weak due to the project
> > being a low priority for both GP and Series Digital, though the user
> > base is active.
> >
> > I've done a number of private deployments of the ostel stack. It's
> > become a pretty standard procedure. My base rate is $3000 and it takes
> > about two days. That said I haven't done any development on the
> > backend stack in over a year. The primary reason is that the client
> > application landscape, while abundant is a mess. Client support is
> > also the more frequently asked question and it the most important area
> > for user interest. Jitsi continues to be the most fully featured
> > client as well as the most frequent request for user support. We at
> > Series Digital have discussed developing Jitsi to have a more
> > contemporary user experience, but the complexity of the code base as
> > well as a growing desire for WebRTC support has pushed that project
> > down on the priority list.
> >
> > So to me this acquisition by a well know enterprise software company
> > is a good sign for improved client support. Unfortunately it's a bad
> > sign for freedom. I'm committed to supporting the backend stack as the
> > world's only fully open source end-to-end secure SIP system. I'm
> > interested to see where Atlassian takes the development of the WebRTC
> > front end, especially regarding encryption.
> >
> > That's my two sense. It seems the CLA is a very bad sign for freedom
> > and I agree with Hans that moving away from otr4j in GP applications
> > would be a good move.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Lee
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner
> > <hans at guardianproject.info <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Tom Ritter:
> >>> On 22 April 2015 at 08:41, Hans-Christoph Steiner
> >>> <hans at guardianproject.info <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> This is sounding not so promising for the future of jitsi as free
> software.
> >>>> Atlassian seems to have no free software projects of their own
> whatsoever, and
> >>>> there page about "open source" is basically a sales pitch:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.atlassian.com/opensource
> >>>>
> >>>> more here, it looks like this is probably the Atlassian press
> release, more or
> >>>> less:
> >>>>
> http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/21/atlassian-acquires-open-source-video-conferencing-company-bluejimp-to-power-hipchats-video-chat/
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> If they're going to use Jitsi's (open) source code in their closed
> >>> source environment, and build on it without releasing the
> >>> contributions (which is possible as they can relicense any additional
> >>> developments to it) - it makes me wonder if past contributors to Jitsi
> >>> can assert copyright over their contributions.  (I assume Jitsi wasn't
> >>> requiring contributor agreements like some projects do to clear
> >>> similar hurdles.)  I don't know much about this part of open source
> >>> licensing though.
> >>>
> >>> -tom
> >>
> >> BlueJimp has required a CLA for contributions to their jitsi
> repositories:
> >> http://bluejimp.com/bca.pdf
> >>
> >> With this clause:
> >>
> >> "you hereby assign to us joint ownership, and to the extent that such
> >> assignment is or becomes invalid, ineffective or unenforceable, you
> hereby
> >> grant to us a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide,
> no-charge,
> >> royalty-free, unrestricted license to exercise all rights under those
> >> copyrights. This includes, at our option, the right to sublicense these
> same
> >> rights to third parties through multiple levels of sublicensees or other
> >> licensing arrangements; "
> >>
> >> Which seems to me to say that they can relicense any of the jitsi
> source code
> >> as they please.  That's part of my objection to having otr4j governed
> by their
> >> CLA:
> >>
> >> https://github.com/jitsi/otr4j/issues/15
> >>
> >> .hc
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> PGP fingerprint: 5E61 C878 0F86 295C E17D  8677 9F0F E587 374B BE81
> >> https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x9F0FE587374BBE81
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/guardian-dev
> >> To unsubscribe, email:  guardian-dev-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org
> <javascript:;>
> > _______________________________________________
> > List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/guardian-dev
> > To unsubscribe, email:  guardian-dev-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org
> <javascript:;>
> >
>
> --
> PGP fingerprint: 5E61 C878 0F86 295C E17D  8677 9F0F E587 374B BE81
> https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x9F0FE587374BBE81
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mayfirst.org/pipermail/guardian-dev/attachments/20150605/3904c3df/attachment.html>