[Hannes Gredler <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:05:43AM -0800, ddutt@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
[ ... ]
 
| Let me be clear about the issue again. If someone reverse engineers a
| proprietary protocol and releases a decoder under GPL, whether or not a company
| chooses to pursue the individual as a patent infringement issue is not the
| issue being debated.
| 
| If engineers working on the proprietary protocol have filed for patent, but to
| make troubleshooting simpler want to release a decoder of the protocol, there
| is a problem. The owner of a patent (or having expressed intent by filing for
| it), has to release the source code for the protocol, today it has to be
| GPL. This potentially can invalidate the patent. This *is* the issue. 

dinesh,

why do you want to make actually the protocol dissector available then ?

if you don't want to disclose information about the protocol
then simply make your private build and don't submit anything to
the public - fine; either you want to publish or not to publish;

requesting changing the licensing policy of something
that was intended to the greater-good of all, just
to protect something for benefit of few seems
not reasonable to me;

as far as i am concerned [i did just contribute a few
IS-IS TLVs and BGP SAFIs - so by far i am not a major contributor]
i would not concur a change of licensing terms;

---

if private companies want to take advantage of open developments
then they should comply to the licensing policy but don't try to
change the rules, just because the product is good;

sorry if my thoughts are too radical;

/hannes