[Mike Hall <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Christopher K. St. John wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, ddutt@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>  
>
> > > Either writing a plugin for a Cisco protocol is a controlled use of
> > > the patent, or it's not. If it's not, then Cisco's request doesn't
> > > make sense.
> >
> > It is not the writing of the decoder of a protocol that is the problem.
> > It is
> > its release under GPL and its effect on patent invalidation that is the
> > problem. 
> >
> >    
>
> This is clearly a lawyer problem, not a GPL problem. 
>  
It is a GPL problem. If the plugin implements something that is in a 
patent, and that plugin is released under the GPL, then that code and 
all modifications to that code are allowed to be used forever as long as 
it stays GPL. So someone else comes along and "modifies" the plugin into 
a full blown app that does something else. There is no way for a company 
(like cisco) to say that they are infringing on the patent, because you 
gave express consent by releasing the original code under the GPL.

I obviously have a conflict here since I work for said company. But I am 
also one of the first contributors to Ethereal and I have no problem 
with the proposed changes. I contributed the "follow TCP stream" and 
CSIDS IP Log parsing code.

In other news will someone change my email in the AUTHORS file from 
mlh@xxxxxx (which still works but is not used anymore) to mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Thanks,

--Mike