[Richard Urwin <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sunday 07 Sep 2003 7:00 pm, Harry Goldschmitt wrote:
> Does anyone have an opinion on how this might apply to plug-in
> dissectors.  I'm  writing a dissector for a patented protocol.  The
> intent is to keep it inside the company, but there's always a chance
> someone will get hold of it.  I was assuming that as a separate piece
> of software, making use of Ethereal facilities, I was reasonably
> safe.  After all, I don't think Apples Quick Time plug-in for Mozilla
> puts Quick Time source under GPL.
>
> Harry

As I understand it, a plugin that escaped the company could only be 
under the GPL. Apple might get away with it because QT is also a 
stand-alone program. (Or maybe because nobody has complained.)

It would keep the lawyers well paid. That area of the licence looks very 
grey to me. 

An added issue for you would be the insight into a patented process that 
the plugin gave to outsiders. If the patent is pending then this might 
invalidate it. On the other hand, if the patent is complete then you 
might be able to use it to deny redistribution rights. (Sections 7 & 8 
of the GPL.)

-- 
Richard Urwin