On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Brad Hards wrote:
> 1. This is a change to the existing license, and potentially needs to be
> approved by all copyright holders. What happens if someone says no?
There are just under 250 people listed in the AUTHORS file at the present
time. If any of them explicitly denies permission for a
differently-licensed release of Ethereal (or if we simply can't reach
them), we can't include their code under the modified license.
> 2. Whether alternatives (such as the patent holders granting a restricted
> patent license for use of techniques potentially covered by patent) are
> compatible with the current license.
The second-to-last paragraph in the preamble of the GPL takes an
all-or-nothing stance toward patents; e.g. you can't exempt a patent for
Ethereal while enforcing it for the Hairdini.
> 3. Whether the plug-in API is sufficiently well defined (in a documentation
> sense, and also in a code stability sense) that this technique is
> practicable.
It may not be. The most complete documentation is in doc/README.plugins.
I'd imagine it would have to be changed to a more formal API specification
before we could reference it from a license. We may also want to create a
document that's separate from the Ethereal distribution. Otherwise,
someone could subvert the intent of the extended license simply by
modifiying the API spec.
I'm in support of the proposed license change. Aside from the patent
issue, it would allow the inclusion of Andreas' H.323 code with the main
distribution.
> Brad
>
> - --
> http://linux.conf.au. 22-25Jan2003. Perth, Aust. I'm registered. Are you?
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
>
> iD8DBQE93IuNW6pHgIdAuOMRAurhAKCPZGtVSoThG9LPEhu+ZMM6ep+19QCdFEtE
> UHnoqZJ7tXLqAfFtEuYKt0A=
> =S9Ek
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ethereal-dev mailing list
> Ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev
>