|Summary:||ASTERISK-13169: UK caller ID on X100P, not working|
|Reporter:||Derek Cooper (coops)||Labels:|
|Date Opened:||2008-12-05 03:02:24.000-0600||Date Closed:||2011-06-07 14:08:25|
|Description:||I have searched High and low, but can't find a patch suitable for asterisk 1.4.22 and the zaptel drivers 220.127.116.11 Do they still exist? I have got a patch to install on the zaptel driver - but it makes no difference.|
****** ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ******
I know about the previous bug report that say no interest in this, well I'm interested as we may be about to use asterisk in 10-20 locations all would benefit from caller id.
|Comments:||By: Leif Madsen (lmadsen) 2008-12-10 10:34:41.000-0600|
It has been requested to ask for which variant of callerID you have on your line as there appears to be many variants.
By: Derek Cooper (coops) 2008-12-11 06:27:41.000-0600
It is UK call ID, that is to say, the call ID is sent before the first ring and I believe it is V23, not sure about things like polarity or DTFM etc
By: David Woolley (davidw) 2008-12-15 10:32:40.000-0600
I presume coops means http://www.sinet.bt.com/227v3p5.pdf
Note this has physical level requirements that need to be supported by the card.
By: Derek Cooper (coops) 2008-12-16 03:51:18.000-0600
Yes that document does give the complete spec for uk caller ID, I did not know BT had published it in this detail. I have found later versions of patches on;
They patch against asterisk 18.104.22.168 and zaptel-1.4.11, it gives an issue with zaptel module xpp, so you have to compile it with this module disabled.
These patches do seem to work with some success, however I can't seem to get the CALLERID variable set within asterisk. If the dialplan simply dials at extension the caller id is passed to the extension, but adding a debug line to the dialplan to show the variable CALLERID shows as blank. I have to have the following in zapdata.conf for it to work:
channel => 1
I think it would be possible to integrate these patches with the latest versions.
By: Leif Madsen (lmadsen) 2008-12-16 08:42:35.000-0600
It would not be possible to integrate those patches unless they are disclaimed properly on the bug tracker by the original author of the patches. In addition, they would need to be fixed up to allow xpp to work as well, and beyond that, adapted to DAHDI.
Does anyone know the original author of the patch and is in contact with them to ask if they would be willing to disclaim the patch and submit it here?
By: Derek Cooper (coops) 2008-12-17 10:00:07.000-0600
I think the original author did not want to sign the disclaimer, is was listed as an issue on a previous bug report. But I don't now about these patches are gthey still owned by them, even after modifications?
The XPP app appears to be broken by the kernel version NOT the patches, as they do not affect this modules and the lines that fail are IFDEF's to do with kernel levels.
By: David Woolley (davidw) 2008-12-17 10:10:36.000-0600
Unless a contributor to a patch assigns copyright to someone else (or there was no valid copyright in the first place), they continue to own the part of the patch they wrote. Assignment normally requires a formal legal contract. Digium prefer to ignore the possibility that there was no copyright, and I can't imagine they have dealt with an assigned copyright on a patch.
Without an assignment, modified works are owned by all the contributors, not just the last modifier.
By: Leif Madsen (lmadsen) 2008-12-17 10:13:37.000-0600
When a disclaimer is signed, copyright is still maintained by the original author. Copyright is not being assigned to Digium by signing the license agreement. It simply provides Digium the right to use the code outside of open source Asterisk (in addition to it).
By: David Woolley (davidw) 2008-12-17 10:35:59.000-0600
This is getting off track, but the hypothetical assignment would have been to the person that modified the patch, not to Digium. On the other hand, I also doubt there has been a case where Digium has accepted code licenced in a similar way to the licensing to Digium, but to a third party, who then signs the Digium disclaimer. (The Digium licence is attempting to get an effect similar to assignment but without some of the down sides for the contributor.)
By: Leif Madsen (lmadsen) 2009-02-02 16:41:01.000-0600
Since the X100P is not actually an officially supported device, I'm going to close this issue since there is no patches available here to be considered. If someone has the ability to move this forward by supplying some code to solve the problem, then I'd be happy to try and move this along.