Hi Juha, Juha Heinanen wrote: shortly yes, and not limited to. but that issues are just couple of the problems preventing the openser release - and are reflecting only the visible technical part. We should not overlook all the management for preparing the release and how the whole process is handled (or miss-handled). Exactly this is the issue - people assumed that maybe somebody else is doing something about testing and measurements, but there is no consolidation on project level (only at personal level). In most of the cases, just assuming, we end up in actually having nobody doing this. In the last releases, it happend several times to discover some obviously problem right after the release. not really - I do not refer to local route issue. From management point of view, simply review the board list to see what I'm referring at (how the critical issues related to the very existence of the project were handles - like changing the project name). Also "cawboys" like decisions - like revoking my project admin rights with no noticed just because I start working on OpenSIPS - and without expresing yet my position regarding OpenSER (if I still want to be involved or not). Technically speaking also, the decisions are taken in the "wild - cawboy" manner. it means we will try to do a release at each 6 month, but no release will be done just because of the deadline while technical problems are still pending. Also a better pre- scheduling of the work will make more efficient the release progress. We have to admit there is a need for a better control and management. during the release cycle, the important steps like testing (join effort) are mandatory no :). the hierarchy is at follows (I will also upload it on the web): 1) core developers - they take design and arch decisions (the guys with the big picture), agree on accepting new modules; they have the last word in the technical issue (if not already solved below). 2) module maintainers - they maintain certain modules and take care all decision regarding their modules. For changes out of their scope, they need to address to level 1) 3) contributors - (see http://opensips.org/index.php?n=Development.Contributing) any issues will be solved bottom up - if a current level is not able to solve it, it will be pushed to the upper level. Regarding the "un-availability" - each module will end up having multiple (compatible) maintainers, so some code will not end up depending of the availability of only one person. as said, the 6 months release cycle is targeted if there are not technical stoppers - like fixing thinks or the need for a large work that may exceed 6 months. The critical need is to have pertinent decisions (in any context), based on value and arguments and not just baseless opinions I think no announcement can convince when comes to large projects. How things will progress (or how things are already progressing) will convince. Personally I put more trust in actions than in words. Regards, Bogdan

Hi Henning, Not sure why there was a need for "emergency action" - is it a kind of war or what? :) . Cannot figure out what was the logic behind, but this kind of hustle decisions (no consultation, no reason, just a wild-wild-west cowboy action) made me make my move. A project needs to offer stability and reliability and this "out-of-control" kind of management does not help at all. I hope you can understand my reason for creating OpenSIPS. Also, I'm ready to overlook this "not-nice" action, so granting back my admin rights on the OpenSER project will be an act of respect. Thank you, Bogdan Henning Westerholt wrote:

Klaus Darilion wrote: I will correct this and say "having board member*s*...." - anyhow this is a very common practice over there. If it took 5 months just to really start a discussion about the new name, I have nothing to comment more. Regard, Bogdan

Hi Henning, I found it an illogical reaction. Probably you have a total false vision of my action - I only want to move on with the work I'm doing in a way I consider more productive. Thanks and regards, Bogdan Henning Westerholt wrote:

To all: As a user/integrator of OpenSer I am alerted by these discussions. I do not have any background why the project splitted into 2 parts, I can only imagine. But at least I can see that the community is splitted into 2 parts, and there is a very problematic conversation going on with some fingerpointing from both sides, which will surely have some background. As a user looking from outside I cannot judge who is right or who is wrong. But the more I read these mails I have the feeling that life with "OpenSER" will become difficult in the future. And uncertainty is always the worst of all prospects. So please: In order not to confuse the latest user, can you please do your discussions on a different platform, solve it there and come back with a solution or statement within a reasonable time? You may call me naive but the current way of discussing creates the biggest damage I can imagine for OpenSER and it's fork(s). Best regards Peter Bogdan-Andrei Iancu schrieb:

Hello, On 08/05/08 16:20, C. Bergström wrote: I believe there is not enough whatever one will do with testing and QA. I have 1.4.0 in production in couple of sites, but only with the modules I use/need. Also, the ones following the developer mailing list are aware of a test suite created by Henning Westerholt that is designed to detect errors and report regression tests. Nothing is done over the night, but that test suite is up and running on devel.openser.org, and will be enhanced as we go. For the 1.3.x release, if using it in production for about 2 millions users is not a good testing and QA, I cannot add more: http://www.ilocus.com/2008/03/the_largest_voip_offering_base.html We are listening and trust me it is very hard to find new names. It is very laborious process in checking trademarks, possible infringements and so on. The old name was attacked because of the "ser" part in it (has nothing to do with the old project and companies around it, but something totally different). It started the idea of finding something different, with no direct relation, as telecom world is one of the toughest in this aspects, and words related to protocols and combinations are already accounted. Nobody claimed is the best and if you have new proposals, just write. Others are welcome as well. We are a community here, but everybody must understand that first we needed to protect from current issues, to be in a safe place. These are rather delicate things and avoiding court trials is advisable. If there is a new proposal, supported by community at large, I am sure there are solutions. I really appreciated that community members sent us some proposals for logo -- I am going to upload on the site. Nobody was removed from mailing lists, from board of openser or from developer team. Everybody has commit rights as he/she had before (commit, delete, add, whatever operation in the svn). There were some changes for root passwords in the servers and removal of administrator privileges. This decision might not be the best one, but considering that openser project was ignored by some developers for about 2 months and the work was done in secrecy to another project could be appreciated as a precaution, plus that the developer stated yesterday that his interest is no longer with this project. When I started openser I had in mind that developers come, developers go, forks may happen. Even the attack for trademark came as a result of project success. All is at the end just showing the maturity. I have been writing documentation, from the core cookbook to developer guide to make things easier for newcomers and help developers. Now, from my point of view, I will continue to work on openser/kamailio project and ensure the good quality and community collaboration around. I wish good luck to any new fork starting from kamailio, that shows we are a good and reliable point to start. What I didn't like in this approach was that openser project was left alone for quite some time while the work (the bugs fixing for the code maintained by the developers doing the fork) was done in secrecy to another project. Would have been fair to announce the retirement once the decision for the new project was taken, so we (the other openser developer) can take over that code and fix the problems in time for release. If you look at the tracker and know the code partitioning between developers you will get the picture. Yes, you can blame me, I was part in a fork as well, but I didn't leave bugs open in my part of the upcoming stable release at that time. The other developers are taking care now and we will have a stable release on the 7th of August. All I wish is the developers that trust the openser/kamailio project are let to continue their work and everybody focuses to do the best where they consider to do it. We can make endless declaration s about the future, time will show the results if we work to implement something now. With kind regards, Daniel Mierla -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://www.asipto.com

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu writes: bogdan, i don't know about the rights removal thing, but it would be interesting for the community to know what your plans regarding OpenSER (now Kamailio) project are. in my opinion there was lack of respect from your part too when you (as OpenSER project founder) started the new fork without any prior notice to the community or a clear message indicating what you thought was wrong with the project. perhaps we could have together been able to fix the problems and continue without the fork. -- juha ps. i'm behind with my email, because i'm in the middle of installing of a new roof for my house. for the same reason i'm not currently able to contribute much to kamailio project.

Hi Peter, OpenSER (as started by Voice System) goes away due some trademark issues regarding the name (see the web site). The OpenSER project renamed as Kamailio. OpenSIPS is a new project started by Voice System as the current OpenSER/Kamailio is not able to provide for us an environment for a quality and progressive work. Shortly, /-> Kamailio OpenSER - \-> OpenSIPS Regards, Bogdan Peter Lemenkov wrote:

On Monday 04 August 2008, Peter Nixon wrote: Hi Peter, there will be definitely a Kamailio release in this week. IANAL, but i don't think its necessary to drop the old OpenSER packages, old releases are not affected by this problems. Cheers, Henning

On Mon 04 Aug 2008, Henning Westerholt wrote: OK. Well, I have disabled the openser package from being rebuilt or pushed out to the mirrors, however I will leave the existing version on the mirrors until Kamailio is released. Regards -- Peter Nixon http://peternixon.net/

On Monday 04 August 2008, Peter Nixon wrote: Hi Peter, i'm also confused. In a nutshell: Kamailio - renamed OpenSER opensips - fork from OpenSER, created from Bogdan The project board will come up with an "official" statement later today. Cheers, Henning

Hello, I have a problem with forwarding... I create a script wich test the INVITE, if the source ip is in the database... and after, I need to forward it... For example, I test to call an INVITE from 1000@myopenser to 1000@myopenser for my test ofcourse!-->but it doesn't forward my INVITE to 1000@myopenser! Have you an idea? Francois

The forward dont work! I don't know how to say to openser "ok you can forward it!" -----Message d'origine----- De : Klaus Darilion [mailto:klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at] Envoyé : lundi 4 août 2008 18:34 À : Francois Berganz Cc : users(a)lists.kamailio.org Objet : Re: [Kamailio-Users] how to forward my SIP frame ? Hi Francois! I do not understand what is not working. The IP address verification or the forwarding? Can you forward without verification? How have you verified that the request is not forward? If you loop the request to the proxy again, you should the request if you sniff on the loopback interface (.e.g ngrep -d lo, or even better: ngrep -d any) regards klaus Francois Berganz schrieb: 1000@myopenser 1000@myopenser!

On Monday 04 August 2008, Mik Cheez wrote: Hi Mik, i accept your position about the name, even if i have another opinion. :-) But we needed to find a new name that is free from third party trademarks, and also not similar to other existing names. And kamailio was choosen in the end from the available suggestions. Cheers, Henning

I've been holding on OpenSIP.org for many years... perhaps I should be donating it now. F. -- Francois D. Menard Project Manager Xittel telecommunications inc. 1350 Royale #800 Trois-Rivieres, QC , G9A 4J4 Canada Follow-me: 819 601 6633 Email: fmenard(a)xittel.net Fax: 819 374-0395

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu writes: bogdan, it would be interesting to know what prevented you from delivering to OpenSER project. the only issue that i'm aware of was the local route stuff that some other developers felt was committed too close to the freeze date. -- juha

On Tuesday 05 August 2008, Andreas Granig wrote: Hi Andreas, we're here are also not amused at all. With regards to the OpenSER TM problem please contact me privately if you like to have further details. Kamailio is at least to my knowledge not affected from trademarks. For details about eventual problems with the name of the fork please also contact me directly, or do some google search by yourself. Cheers, Henning

Juha Heinanen wrote: Is the company that registered the trademark a telecom company? When did they register the trademark? Have they taken other steps to protect their trademark? Prime example - Delta Airlines and Delta Faucet. There is only a trademark conflict when the parties cannot agree on how each party uses the trademarked term. Another example: Apple Computer and The Beatles' record label called Apple - Only when Steve Jobs decided to go the music biz with iTunes was there 'major' problems, even then they still worked things out to keep the brand recognition - which OpenSER has just finally started getting and has now totally lost with this ludicrous name change. I'm not fond of how Digium changed Zaptel to DAHDI either, but they spent many years fighting it - certainly no knee jerk reaction there. Also, what inelectual property does "OpenSER" have? As far as I know, "OpenSER" is all freely available and open source, so where is the conflict? With Digium and Zaptel there is very significant IP (and i'm not talking internet addresses :) Yes, a public disclosure of the request should have been made - surely somebody has prior art (What about SER? Did they get the same request?) Jeremy McNamara P.S. I am not a lawyer, but I should become one :)

El Martes, 5 de Agosto de 2008, Mik Cheez escribió: Really? I don't think so. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo

See at the bottom; self-replying ... On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 02:54 +0200, Jerome Martin wrote: Sorry Jeremy, I accidentally messed up my reading, I thought that was part or the reply to your email :-) If you are on your way to become a lawyer, I wish you the best of luck ! :-) -- Jérôme Martin | LongPhone Responsable Architecture Réseau 122, rue la Boetie | 75008 Paris Tel : +33 (0)1 56 26 28 44 Fax : +33 (0)1 56 26 28 45 Mail : jmartin(a)longphone.fr Web : www.longphone.com <http://www.longphone.com>

You're right...I misunderstood the reasoning and shouldn't have commented. Jerome Martin wrote:

Klaus Darilion wrote: OK - Where / What is the intellectual property they are claiming that infringes on the trademark? Jeremy McNamara

Hi Peter, (I just copy and paste a previous rely) OpenSER (as started by Voice System) goes away due some trademark issues regarding the name (see the web site). The OpenSER project renamed as Kamailio. OpenSIPS is a new project started by Voice System as the current OpenSER/Kamailio is not able to provide for us an environment for a quality and progressive work. Shortly, /-> Kamailio OpenSER - \-> OpenSIPS Regards, Bogdan Peter Nixon wrote: