On Sep 6, 2003, at 9:57 AM, Dave Shawley wrote:
I got a question about about distributing Ethereal as an internal tool
for our field support guys. We have a number of proprietary protocols
that I have written dissectors for. I have been using it for my own
debugging purposes since I am responsible for writing the protocol
servers. Anyway, if we wanted to distribute Ethereal internally what
are the distribution requirements since it is GPLed?
I guess that my real question is: do we have to distribute the source
for our dissectors or is it legal to release binary form dissectors if
we provide links to the source for Ethereal?
Now for the real story... my manager really wants to distribute
Ethereal
since it is a *very* useful debugging tool. She thinks that since it is
an internal distribution, we shouldn't have to divulge the source for
our dissectors. I'm pretty sure we have to distribute the source but I
figured that I would ask anyway.
Now if we do have to distribute the source, is it legal to to dist the
source on the same disk? I think that our lawyers will go for this one
since the disks are only available to our internal FEs. Anyway, I need
some response on this from the legalease on this list.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, so I'm not sure I'd count as one of the
"legalease".
The GPL, as contained in the COPYING file for Ethereal, doesn't appear
to say what constitutes "distributing" the program. However, the FAQ
on the GPL:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
says in
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
"Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted
to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are
free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever
releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies),
too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally
without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the
GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the
program's users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in
certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to
release it is up to you."
So it appears that it is the intent of the FSF (creators of the GPL)
that you be able to distribute it internally without making the source
*publicly* available.
I don't know whether you have to make the source code available to your
field support engineers, given that, if giving it to them counts as
"distribution", you aren't, as I read the GPL, allowed to restrict them
from giving the software away, which would appear to contradict the
item in the FAQ. I'd interpret that as meaning that making GPLed
software available to others within your organization doesn't count as
"distribution"; however, again, I am not a lawyer, nor am I associated
with the FSF, so my interpretation is not at all official or
authoritative.