[Joerg Mayer <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 06:58:28AM +1100, Ronnie Sahlberg wrote:

> If you want a transfer of copyright from from me to you on stuff I write,
> that may be arranged but
> would then involve you tranfering a huge amoung of money to me first.

I second that.

> After thinking it over I like the current licence and can currently not see
> any real benefits at all from changing it. I can only see drawbacks.

I see a real benefit in allowing non-GPL'd plugins. IIRC that was one of the
points for creating the plugin API. One such example is the H323 dissector,
which was created using a tool which generates code that is license
incompatible with the GPL. Another one is the fact that some technitians want
to be able to write dissectors for their companies protocols without having
to be afraid of judicial harrasment in some parts of the world.
I'm not a fan of binary only plugins because the plugin API is too much of a
moving target but it would be nice if developers were allowed to release
plugins for proprietary protocols at all, if need be even as binary only. The
only requirement that is needed is, that reverse engineering by looking at
input/output values must not be disallowed/ discouraged in any way by the
license of the plugin.

  Ciao
          Jörg

PS: While we are talking about GPL: Are the complete sources for Packetyzer
  available anywhere?
--
Joerg Mayer                                          <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx>
I found out that "pro" means "instead of" (as in proconsul). Now I know
what proactive means.