Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Gerald Combs wrote:
>> Back in October there was a discussion about the fact that we have a
>> "click-through" agreement in the Windows installer requiring that users
>> accept the GPL. After reading through the thread again, I've updated
>> the summary in the COPYING file to read:
>>
>> --------
>> Wireshark is distributed under the GNU GPL. There are no restrictions
>> on its use. There are significant restrictions on its distribution.
>>
>> Parts of Wireshark can be built and distributed as libraries. These
>> parts are still covered by the GPL, and NOT by the Lesser General Public
>> License or any other license.
>>
>> If you create a combined work using all or part of Wireshark, then your
>> combined work must be released under a license compatible with the GPL.
>>
>> ...and don't get us started on trademarks.
>>
>> The full text of the GNU GPL follows.
>> ---------
>>
>> Sound reasonable?
>>
> Hi!
>
> I'm really unhappy with this preamble at all. This sounds to me like we
> have a special variation of the GPL.
>
> What your basically do is to personally interpret the GPL, in a way that
> is NOT covered by the GPL, e.g.: "There are significant restrictions on
> its distribution." This is simply misleading! Distribution of the WS
> code from wireshark.org is *not* limited in any way - only variants are.
There _are_ significant restrictions on its distribution -- if you
provide someone with a copy of Wireshark, even if it's straight from the
wireshark.org download site, you still have to comply with section 3 and
provide either the source code or a way to retrieve it. I regularly get
emails from people wanting to include Wireshark with a product or
service they're providing, and that requirement is always in my response.
There are even heftier restrictions on distributing Wireshark as part of
a combined work, since the work has to be GPL-compatible.
> Adding another interpretation of the GPL doesn't make anything better -
> in fact it make things much worse!
...then why did we have the bit of text that was there before?
> P.S: BTW: Why do you add two spaces after a dot? IMHO this is incorrect,
> however, I'm not a native speaker/writer!
Because doing otherwise got points deducted in school. A quick search on
the subject turns up style guides that range from "always" to "if you
like" to "never":
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/fdp-primer/writing-style.html
http://www.fontsite.com/Pages/RulesOfType/ROT0997.html
http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/OneSpaceorTwo/OneSpaceorTwo02.html
The teachers doing the deducting are either retired or deceased now, so
it's probably safe to start using a single space after periods.