["Esh, Andrew" <AEsh@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: RE: [Ethereal-dev] Purpose of plugins?

I'm sorry, I haven't read the license for Ethereal. (I told you I wasn't a lawyer :) I thought it was GPL. If there are exceptions, then they obviously apply. My point is that no such exceptions occur in the *plain* GPL.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ashok Narayanan [mailto:ashokn@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 11:52 AM
To: Esh, Andrew
Cc: stuartd@xxxxxxxxxxx; ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Ethereal-dev] Purpose of plugins?

I also believe that the GPL doesn't allow non-free plugins, but I was under the impression that the Ethereal license has an exception for non-free plugins being dynamically loaded. Is this not correct?

Re: the ethical issues about GPL, we can go on all day about them back and forth without achieving anything (including our day jobs :-)

-Ashok

On Fri, 17 May 2002 11:05:55 -0500
"Esh, Andrew" <AEsh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of the GPL is such that plugins must
> be licensed under the GPL if they are linked or plugged in to a GPL product.
> Even dynamically linked "shim" libraries which sit between the GPL product
> and the operating system must be GPL. The GPL's reach stops at the standard
> operating systems calls.
>
> Linux has a special provision in its license which allows kernel modules to
> be free of the GPL, so things like proprietary device drivers can be
> developed.
>
> Other licensing alternatives are the LGPL, and the OpenBSD license. The
> latter is what Apple uses to support Mac OS X. Part of that OS is the Darwin
> project, which is open source, while other parts are proprietary. My
> impression of the OpenBSD license is that there are no requirements. OpenBSD
> code can be used in proprietary products, and source code can be withheld.
> This is only what I've heard, though.
>
> My first impression of open source was that it was a welcome idea. I still
> feel that way. When I first read about the GPL, I thought that it reflected
> the same spirit I had. When I heard that Microsoft was saying that the GPL
> "spreads" into other products, I also heard at the same time from the open
> source community that this isn't true. Now I understand that it is true, in
> a way.
>
> The GPL prevents the development of proprietary plugins and libraries, or it
> must spread into them. I feel that this is in contradiction of the spirit of
> open source. I don't think people ought to be forced to license their work a
> certain way, rather they should be allowed to join the community, and
> contribute what they wish, voluntarily. If people would rather write
> proprietary code and charge for it, that's acceptable, so long as I'm not
> forced to pay for it. I'd rather compete from the standpoint of which
> person's idea is better rather than which person's lawyer is better. The
> rest can be left to Darwinism.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stuart Donaldson [mailto:stuartd@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 10:37 AM
> To: Ethereal-Dev (E-mail)
> Subject: [Ethereal-dev] Purpose of plugins?
>
>
> In trying to go through and understand how and where to do some work on
> Ethereal, I find that I am not really clear on what the purpose of the
> plugin modules actually is.
>
> Is it to allow modules to be prepared and distributed separately, outside of
> the standard Ethereal package? 
> Can it be used to prepare proprietary parsers that might be distributed with
> restricted licenses? 
> All of the above?
>
> Are there any plugins which are not distributed as part of Ethereal?
>
> Thanks...
> -Stuart-
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ethereal-dev mailing list
> Ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev
>

--- Asok the Intern ----------------------------------------
Ashok Narayanan
IOS Network Protocols, Cisco Systems
250 Apollo Drive, Chelmsford, MA 01824
Ph: 978-497-8387.  Fax: 978-497-8513 (Attn: Ashok Narayanan)