VicidialNOW 1.3 RELEASED!!!

[gardo]

After a month of delay, VicidialNOW CE 1.3 finally hit the streets.

Here are some of the major changes:

New Vicidial agent interface
Astguiclient/Vicidial 2.0.5.1rc1
CentOS 5.4 as base
64 gig memory support

Check out the CHANGELOG on the CD for a more complete list of changes.

Here's the screenshot of the new agent UI:



Download it here: http://www.vicidialnow.nl/ftp/VicidialN ... ce-1.3.iso

[mflorell]

Where does the recording information and the recording button show up? and web form?

[gardo]

Oops! Wrong screenshot. Hehehe! They were taken out for a client of ours. Re-posting the correct one.

[vctor]

The layout really looks familiar, Im pretty sure I did that layout, but different icons and color schemes. Do I get to be in the credits? HAHAHAHAHA

[gmcust3]

vctor , did you post your screen shot anywhere earlier ?

And

Anyway to upgrade instead of New Install ?

[gardo]

The initial layout and design was COMMISIONED by Manixtone call center from you more than 2 years ago (and which you have FAILED TO PUBLISH and released to the community). Since then we have worked on the design and layout and ported it to 2.0.5.X (we'll have it ported to 2.2 once it's out officially too)

Vicidial is GPL/AGPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html).

[gmcust3]

Anyway to upgrade instead of New Install ?

[vctor]

As what you clearly stated, it was commisioned by that call center, which they paid for, do you have permission to acquire that code? As for publishing this code, I'm sure that no call center will be paying someone and then publishes the code for everybody.

I mean if I'd be posting or "publishing" something which I did not worked on I'd let others know that. And maybe even credit the REAL person who worked on it??? I hope you get my point, but this is not about me, but Im just protecting the call center that actually holds the right for this code.

Yes this is good for the community and all that, but make sure you don't have other strings attached first before publishing this to others. Like actual permission from the call center to "publish" the code.

The initial layout and design was COMMISIONED by Manixtone call center from you more than 2 years ago (and which you have FAILED TO PUBLISH and released to the community). Since then we have worked on the design and layout and ported it to 2.0.5.X (we'll have it ported to 2.2 once it's out officially too)

Vicidial is GPL/AGPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html).

Yes I know that vicidial is GPL, but for me this is plagiarism, because this is my layout and this work was for a private call center and STRICTLY not for publishing and for sharing with the community.


And also, I would emphasize on the 4th item on this list:

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means

* to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
* to use (another's production) without crediting the source
* to commit literary theft
* to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.

In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward.

[mflorell]

This is GPL code, originally written by me. When you took it and modified it, you are required to maintain the license. As soon as you transferred your changed code to the client then the GPL came into effect and your code became redistributable. There is nothing you can do about that. This is one of the reasons I chose a GPL license.

[Op3r]

I think what Vic is saying is that the layout of the screen should be modified or give a proper attribute to it.

I dont think he claims the source code but I think he is claiming about the layout that he did. This discussion is a little bit iffy to me as I both know them personally (I work with Vic before he built this interface and I work with demian on vicidialnow).

In short gardo is saying this is an open source (the screen) but what vic is saying is that yes it is open source or else you cant modify the code if it isnt. But all vic is saying is the layout of the said agent screen which he did for a call center and gave the code to the center. He wants gardo to change the layout.

[vctor]

This is GPL code, originally written by me. When you took it and modified it, you are required to maintain the license. As soon as you transferred your changed code to the client then the GPL came into effect and your code became redistributable. There is nothing you can do about that. This is one of the reasons I chose a GPL license.

Yes that code is redistributable, but the call center who has that code may or may not want to redistribute it. What would happen to that code if the call center refuses to redistribute?

All I'm saying is that, this layout I did was for that call center, and if they (vicidialnow.org) have legal permission to redistribute this then that's great!

Now... if you are using my layout, at least, have the respect to at least mention my name and give credit for the work. If you don't want to give credit then just change the layout. You don't know how much effort and time I gave just to get that layout working!

[gardo]

@Op3r and vctor

I suggest you read the GPL. Looks like you don't understand the meaning of open source. There is no such thing as CAN NOT BE PUBLISHED when you modify an open source application. It is public software. You guys have been using open source software for more than 4 years and you still don't know what GPL is. I can't believe I'm explaining this again.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... nCopyright

If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program commercially?

You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL.
These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own.

Your initial layout and contribution has been mentioned many times before. Here's one: http://vicidialnow.blogspot.com/2009/08 ... l#comments .

Yes that code is redistributable, but the call center who has that code may or may not want to redistribute it. What would happen to that code if the call center refuses to redistribute?

Now... if you are using my layout, at least, have the respect to at least mention my name and give credit for the work. If you don't want to give credit then just change the layout. You don't know how much effort and time I gave just to get that layout working!

[gardo]

Right on the spot!!!

This is GPL code, originally written by me. When you took it and modified it, you are required to maintain the license. As soon as you transferred your changed code to the client then the GPL came into effect and your code became redistributable. There is nothing you can do about that. This is one of the reasons I chose a GPL license.

[gmcust3]

Another version :



http://www.hostedpredictivedialersoluti ... c-test.zip

[vctor]

@gardo
Looks like you don't know the meaning of plagiarism?

I'm well aware of the GPL license, but, do you think it's respectful to the call center who actually "PAID" for that layout to redistribute this?

This is just for respect.

There is a better solution for all of this, and that is to code your OWN layout yourself. That's not hard to do, to think you're the lead developer for vicidialnow.

[vctor]

As far as I remember you were not my client, so I did not transfer anything to you, that's not right on the spot. So I think the prerogative to redistribute this code is for the call center and not you gardo

Right on the spot!!!

This is GPL code, originally written by me. When you took it and modified it, you are required to maintain the license. As soon as you transferred your changed code to the client then the GPL came into effect and your code became redistributable. There is nothing you can do about that. This is one of the reasons I chose a GPL license.

[gardo]

Oh well. Looks like you really don't understand GPL (or can not understand). I won't argue anymore. I rest my case.

[vctor]

@gardo
I don't want to argue about GPL, because we are on the same page on that, ok you can distribute a code that has GPL.

All Im saying is that the original layout was for a paying client, and that layout is I'm sure protected by clauses made by the call center and my boss when they reached an agreement and have their contract. I'm sure you know about clauses like, copyright stuff, non disclosure etc...

The fact is that they paid for that layout not you, and I really suggest that you change the layout into something more ...shall we say...original? This is just unethical in my point of view.

Credits on a comments page? Wow! Now that's original

[hammobru]

Hi, I just installed the new 1.3 and I can see the new options on the top header adding the PHPMYadmin, but all other screens seem to be the same as the 1.2. I dont see the new agent screen? It shows
VERSION: 2.0.5-174
BUILD: 90522-0506
and vicialnow 1.3 at boot.

Did I miss a step?

[gardo]

Nope! We're definitely not on the same page. Fact of the matter is, you should have discussed to your client and your boss that you're using open source software. And as such it was (and still is) covered by the GPL. Then you know what that means. If not, it means that your "protected clauses" are superseded by the GPL.

[gardo]

Did you use an external optical drive to install it?

Hi, I just installed the new 1.3 and I can see the new options on the top header adding the PHPMYadmin, but all other screens seem to be the same as the 1.2. I dont see the new agent screen? It shows
VERSION: 2.0.5-174
BUILD: 90522-0506
and vicialnow 1.3 at boot.

Did I miss a step?

[hammobru]

Call me crazy, but after I rebooted the the screens are correct now and the version is showing
VICIDIAL web-client version: 2.0.5-206 BUILD: 90525-1014. Looks good.

[vctor]

All I'm going to say is If you've acquired this layout from our previous client legally, then everything is right already. But as long as they were the ones who paid for this layout, and they are not trying to redistribute this to anyone else, then...something is wrong there.

The GPL is clear, it is redistributable, ONLY if they want to redistribute it.

Let's be clear here... they are only the ones that SHOULD have this layout in the first place and not vicidialnow.


Now, if the previous client wants to redistribute the layout they paid for, then you can use the layout and you can also redistribute it.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?

Code: Select all

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

    But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

    Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

This is what I want to say...
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIDemandACopy

If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand he give me a copy?

Code: Select all

No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of the program if he chooses to do so. He also has the right not to redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses

Nope! We're definitely not on the same page. Fact of the matter is, you should have discussed to your client and your boss that you're using open source software. And as such it was (and still is) covered by the GPL. Then you know what that means. If not, it means that your "protected clauses" are superseded by the GPL.

[gardo]

If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?

No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.

Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a nondisclosure agreement?

No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.

If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered software copyrighted by the FSF, please inform us immediately by writing to license-violation@fsf.org.

If the violation involves GPL-covered code that has some other copyright holder, please inform that copyright holder, just as you would for any other kind of violation of the GPL.

[vctor]

Your point being? You haven't even answered the question if you've acquired that code legally from them.

Anyway, my point is if they are not redistributing the code, then you should not redistribute it for them, because they are the ones who can decide if they want to redistribute it or not, they were the ones who actually had it modified and not you.

At least create your own layout, it's not that hard to do.

Again, this part of the code for the layout was ONLY for them, so they should be the ones who can decide if they can redistribute the code. And that's still according to GPL.

[gardo]

Yes. Satisfied?

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

Check the second paragraph in bold. Something for you to think about.

[vctor]

Here's my understanding of GPL:
@gardo let me know if this is your understanding of GPL as well

I can modify a software and redistribute it if it's under GPL then share the code to the public

I can also choose not to redistribute a modified software and use it privately



Here's my last take:
If my previous client told you to redistribute this layout then fine with me, that's it. But if not,then change the layout to an original layout. I just want to maintain the ethics of programming that's all.

I don't want to be the bad guy here, or to be rude to anyone. What I was trying to point out is that, this is a paid layout by a client who may or may not want to redistribute this. And let's respect that. If you want, make your own layout, at least put something different, change the arrangement of the widgets etc. Make sure that it would be better than the first one. I think that should be the essence of a GPL'd software and not just a copy of something that is not supposed to be copied in the first place.

[gmcust3]

Cant I upgrade it ?

I DON'T want to loose my data.

[gardo]

Read again on the GPL please. You shouldn't have used or modified Vicidial if that's your view on open source software. There was nothing unethical in using the initial layout (that you did) to begin with. In the first place the software wasn't yours. And if you don't like someone modifying the Vicidial agent interface and porting it to the newer versions, then don't use Vicidial at all.

I can also choose not to redistribute a modified software and use it privately

True. However, this doesn't make the software non-GPL. It doesn't matter if it was paid and commissioned by a client or not. It is still Vicidial and GPL software.

You speak as if you own the software(Vicidial) or the client owns the software. They're not. Clearly you are misguided on this. The software is GPL.

It doesn't matter what you think GPL should be. GPL is GPL.

And yes, your previous client gave me a copy of your modified version of the agent interface of Vicidial constituting distribution.The VicidialNOW team modified it, made it work with the latest versions(since it's quite outdated) of Vicidial thereby making it better.

Here's my understanding of GPL:
@gardo let me know if this is your understanding of GPL as well

I can modify a software and redistribute it if it's under GPL then share the code to the public

I can also choose not to redistribute a modified software and use it privately

Here's my last take:
If my previous client told you to redistribute this layout then fine with me, that's it. But if not,then change the layout to an original layout. I just want to maintain the ethics of programming that's all.

I don't want to be the bad guy here, or to be rude to anyone. What I was trying to point out is that, this is a paid layout by a client who may or may not want to redistribute this. And let's respect that. If you want, make your own layout, at least put something different, change the arrangement of the widgets etc. Make sure that it would be better than the first one. I think that should be the essence of a GPL'd software and not just a copy of something that is not supposed to be copied in the first place.

Porting the "modified" agent interface to Vicidial 2.0.5.X is well within the clause of GPL/AGPL.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

I don't really see the point why you are whining and complaining when everything has been done legally and in accordance with the GPL.

[williamconley]

wow. that was rough guys. all he did was ask if you got it from them legally (in case they commissioned the changes for their internal use). and all you did was answer "yes".

and it took all that?

it was a good read, though. i especially liked the quotations and interpretations. in the end a very good dissection. provided some interesting gpl clarity.

but, please, relax a little, stand down. whew.

[gmcust3]

How can I display customer First Name and LAST NAME in front of CusTInfOSpaN span ?

[ykhan]

Perhaps it would just be simpler to give Vic credit for his layout design since the VicidialNOW team did not actually design it. I understand that they mad ethe CODE work with the design, but i am still unclear on the copyrights of the DESIGN vs CODE here.

[williamconley]

Perhaps it would just be simpler to give Vic credit for his layout design since the VicidialNOW team did not actually design it. I understand that they mad ethe CODE work with the design, but i am still unclear on the copyrights of the DESIGN vs CODE here.

Opinion: the "Design" is in the same file as the "Code" ... then the changes made to the original should be credited to the person who made the change and the original code must be made available to the "receiver" so that there is no confusion (who wrote what) and to "adhere" to the licensing structure (you make changes to this code, you must release YOUR code).

IF the "design" is in a sep file, and NOT a revision of the original code, then the credit for that sep file obviously goes entirely to the writer of that code. Design may be a "visual thing", but this is computing ... and all this visual stuff still comes down to code, and someone wrote it. Obviously to USE the sep file, you would have to modify several of the other files and the original file. Those revisions would need to be published so the recipient knows who wrote what.

Most importantly (in my opinion): when "Vic" gave his changes to his client, he GAVE the client the original code, all the changes and the source code for both. So the CLIENT, as required by the licensing, knew who wrote what and had the code for any modified files available.

But with VicidialNOW ... who wrote which parts of which files? Is this information available to all recipients so credit goes where it belongs for individual parts.

I think Vic was trying to be sure that everyone knew who wrote what, and had ensured that with his client.

I think VicidialNOW is simply trying to get as much available to the public as possible, and did publish all the code as required.

So the question is simply who wrote what. I mean, will The Vicidial Group get blamed for a horrible bug written by Vic because we no longer know who wrote what code? Or will VicidialNOW get credit for well-written code by Vic? (design is in the code, remember?)

As for "publishing without permission" ... let's be real. The files in question have their licensing written in them. If Vic included a copyright notice in his files, they are copyrighted under the terms of that license. If not, one must assume that they follow the licensing of the overall product, which means VicidialNOW is free to distribute them if VicidialNOW receives a distributed copy without notice of any other licensing. And: Did Vic include a statement in his files that HE wrote them and under what licensing version?

See, now you guys got ME doin it. Sheesh.

On the other hand, this IS all on CentOS, so the "Drama" should not be entirely surprising. Oops, did I actually print that one? OK, back to work. Rant over.

[jepps3]

Hey vctor.......

First of all, you need to understand the "spirit" behind the entire Vicidial movement.

You dont need to bring drama to the Vicidial community. People like mflorell, william, gardo and many others have made it possible for people like me who have very little money to have access to Predictive Dialing systems without spending $1000's on systems.

vctor, you should be thanking the authors of vicidial for giving YOU the opportunity to make money off their code to sell to YOUR clients. You should be licking their a$$holes right after they took a hard dunp. If it wasn't for them, you wouldnt even have a product to sell to your client.

These guys even offer free tech support via this forum.

What company gives you all this:

FREE PREDICTIVE DIALER
FREE TECH SUPPORT
FREE UPGRADES
FREE REDISTRIBUTION RIGHTS


Peace out!!

[gardo]

@williamconley: I like hearing/reading your rants. Hehehe!

@jepps3: Don't be too harsh on Vctor. Hopefully this discussion enlightens anyone who uses open source software.

[jepps3]

I apologize for being harsh. I just get angry sometimes with people. I am so greatful for all the work you guys have put in Vicidial.

I think everyone should be greatful. Vctor should have used "dialogic" hardware and code if he wants to go "big corporate" and "proprietary"with his business. Vicidial is for the people by the people.

[davidm]

Is there a option where in the call needs to connect and it has to disconnect with in 6 sec.

How good is the dial Engine compared to other Vici Dial.

If there is no option.Please do provide me the required info in regards to as i need it on a priority basis.

I been working on this solution for a longer period of time.

Please do help us if some one knows it

[davidm]

Hi,i request you to give me a reply in regards to the question that i have asked you and i am ccopying below it as well





Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:36 pm Post subject: Solution

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there a option where in the call needs to connect and it has to disconnect with in 6 sec.

How good is the dial Engine compared to other Vici Dial.

If there is no option.Please do provide me the required info in regards to as i need it on a priority basis.

I been working on this solution for a longer period of time.

Please do help us if some one knows it

[williamconley]

Perhaps you should consider posting this properly. This does not apparently fit the "VicidialNOW 1.3 RELEASED!!!" framework of this particular thread. Just a thought.

[ticoit]

This thread was very interesting reading. Good thing vicidial was changed to affero.

-luis