[Home]

Summary:ASTERISK-22403: Provide support for detecting Fortress Style Payphone coins
Reporter:Jason Kendall (coolacid)Labels:
Date Opened:2013-08-26 13:03:33Date Closed:2013-10-03 20:37:56
Priority:TrivialRegression?No
Status:Closed/CompleteComponents:Features
Versions:11.5.0 Frequency of
Occurrence
Related
Issues:
Environment:Attachments:( 0) asterisk-1.8.0.patch
Description:There is a few patches that need sign off. There is an original patch created, which was adapted by another developer, which still does not apply cleanly to current SVN.

In an attempt to have all the required sign offs, I'll have each developer submit their patch with sign off and provide a final patch which will apply cleanly for possible inclusion.
Comments:By: Rusty Newton (rnewton) 2013-08-26 13:22:04.936-0500

Thanks Jason. I'll set this issue to Waiting On FeedBack. You can hit "Send Back" or "Enter Feedback" when all the patches are posted as contributions from the users with signed CLAs.
By: Sai (saizai) 2013-08-26 15:10:19.066-0500

Patch to add coin tone support. Coauthored by Alex Fink and Sai. Added as a file attachment.
By: Sai (saizai) 2013-09-01 17:29:53.175-0500

I got an error with the license agreement thing. I don't want to disclose my street address.

However, I'm betting that someone didn't believe that my full name really is Sai. Well, it is, so... whoever approves those things, please contact 'em and tell 'em to fix it. Thanks.
By: Jason Kendall (coolacid) 2013-09-04 22:09:28.954-0500

Thanks Gents!

Thanks Rusty for being on the ball and grabbing it. There is a few tweaks for Canadian payphones, which I'm not sure if the coding I did is the best fit or not. Plus a small change to the INIT. I'll work on getting a final patch for review ready later this week.

Cheers,
J

By: Rusty Newton (rnewton) 2013-09-05 15:11:25.759-0500

{quote}
I got an error with the license agreement thing. I don't want to disclose my street address.

However, I'm betting that someone didn't believe that my full name really is Sai. Well, it is, so... whoever approves those things, please contact 'em and tell 'em to fix it. Thanks.
{quote}

The contributor's agreement requires that you fill out the form completely (including street address). Without the license we cannot accept your code.

I'm also going to remove all links to the patches hosted on remote servers, as again we can't accept the patches until they are posted onto JIRA from the author, a user who has signed the license agreement.

Once you have completed the license agreement, you'll have to re-submit the patch you have already attempted to attach. As it won't even show up until you attach it with a valid license agreement.

https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Asterisk+Issue+Guidelines#AsteriskIssueGuidelines-DigiumSubmissionLicenseAgreement
By: Rusty Newton (rnewton) 2013-09-09 10:23:23.344-0500

Sai, Legal tells me they have rejected the license again as incomplete (I believe missing the State/Province of residence).  

Please re-submit a completely filled out form.




By: Sai (saizai) 2013-09-09 13:38:22.200-0500

OK, tried one more time. (This is getting annoying.)

Can we just put a LICENSE file in our Github for the patch that would be acceptable to your lawyers?
By: Rusty Newton (rnewton) 2013-09-10 13:33:25.955-0500

bq. Can we just put a LICENSE file in our Github for the patch that would be acceptable to your lawyers?

Nope. The license must be associated with the user that submits the code to this tracker. The license and the code must be submitted here in JIRA.


By: Sai (saizai) 2013-09-10 19:43:08.958-0500

Tried yet again. This time it was rejected because I put my PO box address.

I don't see any valid legal reason why I should have to disclose my residential address for a software license agreement to be valid, the agreement does not facially require it, and I don't want to do so for privacy reasons.

If Digium believes that my residential address is absolutely required for a software licensing agreement to be legally executed, then please let me know what the reason is for that. I have routinely signed contracts with entities whose address was a PO box.

If not, then I guess Digium doesn't want my code.

I've said repeatedly that I am happy to explicitly license the code compatibly w/ Asterisk's license, but I am not comfortable with the degree of invasion of privacy that is being demanded of me.
By: Rusty Newton (rnewton) 2013-09-16 14:29:34.321-0500

bq. Tried yet again. This time it was rejected because I put my PO box address.

Yes, the form mentions that the address must be your Employer's address, (if submitting on behalf of an employer or organization) or your residential address.

{quote}
I don't see any valid legal reason why I should have to disclose my residential address for a software license agreement to be valid, the agreement does not facially require it, and I don't want to do so for privacy reasons.

If Digium believes that my residential address is absolutely required for a software licensing agreement to be legally executed, then please let me know what the reason is for that. I have routinely signed contracts with entities whose address was a PO box.
{quote}

I talked with our legal department. The reason for requiring a street address, either your address if you are submitting as an individual or your employer’s if you are submitting on behalf of your employer, is primarily because Digium needs reliable methods to reach contributors in the event there is a question regarding Digium’s right to license the Submission. It is easier to locate contributors who have moved based on the last known street address versus a PO Box address. Additionally if we were ever required to notify contributors of something which requires confirmation of receipt by the individual, for example by certified mail, it is impossible to do so using a PO Box.

{quote}
If not, then I guess Digium doesn't want my code.

I've said repeatedly that I am happy to explicitly license the code compatibly w/ Asterisk's license, but I am not comfortable with the degree of invasion of privacy that is being demanded of me.
{quote}

The patch sounds cool. We can't consider the code for inclusion until the CLA is submitted as required.
We don't want you to do something you don't feel comfortable with. If the requirements are unacceptable to you, let us know and we can close this issue out and move on. Out of respect for everyone involved here, we don't want to drag this on.
By: Rusty Newton (rnewton) 2013-09-16 15:18:53.568-0500

In addition I reviewed the comments on the issue and I wanted to clarify another aspect.

It was stated that the patch has multiple authors

bq. Coauthored by Alex Fink and Sai

Therefore both authors will need to sign a CLA and submit the patch, or one submit the patch and the other state that they acknowledge the submission.

That is unless both of the author's are part of the same organization or corporate entity. In that case, one author can sign the CLA and submit the patch, and in the CLA you would provide the organization or entity's information.


By: Rusty Newton (rnewton) 2013-10-03 20:37:48.112-0500

Suspended due to lack of activity. Please request a bug marshal in #asterisk-bugs on the IRC network irc.freenode.net to reopen the issue should you have the additional information requested.  Further information can be found at http://www.asterisk.org/developers/bug-guidelines