Ethereal-dev: RE: [Ethereal-dev] Request: Change the allowed license of plugins

Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.

Date Prev · Date Next · Thread Prev · Thread Next
Date Index · Thread Index · Other Months · All Mailing Lists
From: ddutt@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:20:03 -0800
Hi Andrew,

You're right that you maybe unconcerned with the discomfort of some company's
lawyers. Based on what I've seen from some of the others on this list, I think
I'm not alone. 

Let me step back and ask the question, what is the effect of this change to the
Ethereal community. Those who wish to release decoders under GPL can continue
to do so. Companies that wish to release decoders for proprietary protocols do
so under a different license and as a plugin to Ethereal and I see this as a
benefit to the Ethereal user community in general. Companies with siginificant
investment in an idea or protocol that is proprietary will err on the side of
caution. 

I don't see the detrimental effect of this change. Am I wrong ? 

Dinesh
Esh, Andrew writes:
 > You announce the discomfort of your lawyers as if it is a broadly based
 > legal opinion. Personally, I am unconcerned with their discomfort. ;)
 > 
 > Perhaps other lawyers have differing opinions. (Perhaps? What am I thinking,
 > of COURSE other lawyers will have differing opinions!)
 > 
 > What really matters is the opinion of the court.
 > 
 > I worry that these lawyers could cause us to assume a legal position which
 > is detrimental, and uncalled for. Do we really need to do this?
 > 
 > BTW: I am on the copyright list, due to a trivial change I made to the
 > Windows code. I intend to subscribe to the opinion of the heavy
 > contributors, whatever that turns out to be.
 > 
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: ddutt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:ddutt@xxxxxxxxx]
 > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 9:37 AM
 > To: Esh, Andrew
 > Cc: 'Hannes Gredler'; Ronnie Sahlberg; ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
 > Subject: RE: [Ethereal-dev] Request: Change the allowed license of
 > plugins
 > 
 > 
 > Hi Andrew/Hannes,
 > 
 > Esh, Andrew writes:
 >  > On the other hand, releasing information about patented material does not
 >  > invalidate the patent. In fact, the opposite is exactly what the patent
 > As I have said in my earlier responses, GPL does contain text that makes
 > lawyers very nervous about the ability to enforce patents. You're right that
 > releasing information about patents doesn't invalidate the patent. At the
 > IETF,
 > we see companies typically release proprietary information in an attempt to
 > standardize it. But in that case, there is no language (as in GPL) that
 > makes lawyers uncomfortable. If lawyers are uncomfortable, we engineers
 > don't
 > get to release stuff back into public domain.
 > 
 > > We should also consider that a decoder is not an implementation or use of
 > > the patented idea, just an illustration or expression. Being able to
 > decode
 > > the protocol does not mean any value is being derived from it.
 > It does not matter what we consider. It is the lawyers engaged in IPR issues
 > that interpret the licenses and decide what it says about patent
 > infringement. 
 > 
 > But, if we make the change that I'm suggesting and companies then release
 > decoders for proprietary protocols, I think the user community of Ethereal
 > benefits a lot. It also frees companies from worrying about patent issues
 > and
 > can then release source code for the decoders as well under a different
 > license
 > such as IBM's or Mozilla's. 
 > 
 > Dinesh
 > -- 
 > Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.
 >                                            - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
 > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
 > <HTML>
 > <HEAD>
 > <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
 > <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2650.12">
 > <TITLE>RE: [Ethereal-dev] Request: Change the allowed license of plugins</TITLE>
 > </HEAD>
 > <BODY>
 > 
 > <P><FONT SIZE=2>You announce the discomfort of your lawyers as if it is a broadly based legal opinion. Personally, I am unconcerned with their discomfort. ;)</FONT></P>
 > 
 > <P><FONT SIZE=2>Perhaps other lawyers have differing opinions. (Perhaps? What am I thinking, of COURSE other lawyers will have differing opinions!)</FONT></P>
 > 
 > <P><FONT SIZE=2>What really matters is the opinion of the court.</FONT>
 > </P>
 > 
 > <P><FONT SIZE=2>I worry that these lawyers could cause us to assume a legal position which is detrimental, and uncalled for. Do we really need to do this?</FONT></P>
 > 
 > <P><FONT SIZE=2>BTW: I am on the copyright list, due to a trivial change I made to the Windows code. I intend to subscribe to the opinion of the heavy contributors, whatever that turns out to be.</FONT></P>
 > 
 > <P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: ddutt@xxxxxxxxx [<A HREF="mailto:ddutt@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:ddutt@xxxxxxxxx</A>]</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 9:37 AM</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: Esh, Andrew</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>Cc: 'Hannes Gredler'; Ronnie Sahlberg; ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: RE: [Ethereal-dev] Request: Change the allowed license of</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>plugins</FONT>
 > </P>
 > <BR>
 > 
 > <P><FONT SIZE=2>Hi Andrew/Hannes,</FONT>
 > </P>
 > 
 > <P><FONT SIZE=2>Esh, Andrew writes:</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>&nbsp;&gt; On the other hand, releasing information about patented material does not</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>&nbsp;&gt; invalidate the patent. In fact, the opposite is exactly what the patent</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>As I have said in my earlier responses, GPL does contain text that makes</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>lawyers very nervous about the ability to enforce patents. You're right that</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>releasing information about patents doesn't invalidate the patent. At the IETF,</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>we see companies typically release proprietary information in an attempt to</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>standardize it. But in that case, there is no language (as in GPL) that</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>makes lawyers uncomfortable. If lawyers are uncomfortable, we engineers don't</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>get to release stuff back into public domain.</FONT>
 > </P>
 > 
 > <P><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; We should also consider that a decoder is not an implementation or use of</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; the patented idea, just an illustration or expression. Being able to decode</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; the protocol does not mean any value is being derived from it.</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>It does not matter what we consider. It is the lawyers engaged in IPR issues</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>that interpret the licenses and decide what it says about patent infringement. </FONT>
 > </P>
 > 
 > <P><FONT SIZE=2>But, if we make the change that I'm suggesting and companies then release</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>decoders for proprietary protocols, I think the user community of Ethereal</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>benefits a lot. It also frees companies from worrying about patent issues and</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>can then release source code for the decoders as well under a different license</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>such as IBM's or Mozilla's. </FONT>
 > </P>
 > 
 > <P><FONT SIZE=2>Dinesh</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>-- </FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.</FONT>
 > <BR><FONT SIZE=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe</FONT>
 > </P>
 > 
 > </BODY>
 > </HTML>
-- 
Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.
                                           - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe