[Anders Broman <a.broman58@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Maybe you are missing the point that someone may wish to develop an in house plug-in not meant for distribution which in my understanding is permissible under GPL.

As I understand it that is no longer possible? To me that's an unnecessary restriction which we do not need to put on our users and I see no point/gain in doing so.

Best regards 

Anders

Den mån 4 dec. 2023 14:05João Valverde <j@xxxxxx> skrev:

Confused was not an offense, "GPL license" is patently not the same as
"GPL-compatible license" so it is a legitimate reason to be confused.
Please avoid unnecessary and unfair characterizations of my words.

And I will not revert it on that basis. I will revert it if my
understanding of the our license requirements is wrong or flawed. It is
not OK for you to exempt some use-case from the license terms under
which every developer contributes to this project.

Gerald can revert it if he wishes and I will respect it. As project lead
he can make that call.

On 04/12/23 12:35, Roland Knall wrote:
> I do not think there is a need for calling someone confused.
>
> The whole discussion is not in any way useful for our users. There is
> the explicit corporate usecase, where in-house versions do exist with
> their own protocols and plugins. Often times those versions do not
> even deal with licenses for those modifications at all, and going from
> the point that they change the CMakeListsCustom.txt files, one could
> argue, that this is not a source code modification in the sense meant
> by the gpl license.
>
> Joao, I agree with having a clear path for license application, and I
> also agree that we should be prudent on what parts a user can use and
> which he can't. I would even be ok if we have a warning in the
> build-process, explicitly stating that the code being linked is not
> fully compliant and therefore not allowed to be distributed. But I
> strongly disagree cutting off the leg we are standing on just on pure
> principle. The corporate users are a HUGE part of our userbase. And if
> we go down this route, we need to have a proper discussion about this.
> Just adding license enforcement without having the discussion is NOT
> the way to move forward here.
>
> Please add another patch, which keeps the ABI versioning in (which I
> really appreciate and think is a good thing to do), but reverts the
> enforcement of the licenses. Then we can start to properly discuss how
> to move forward with this topic. It will - most likely - require a
> vote by the technical steering comittee.
>
> kind regards
> Roland
>
> Am Mo., 4. Dez. 2023 um 13:23 Uhr schrieb João Valverde <j@xxxxxx>:
>
>
>
>     On 04/12/23 12:19, João Valverde wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > On 04/12/23 12:12, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>     >> João Valverde <j@xxxxxx> ezt írta (időpont: 2023. dec. 4., H,
>     12:59):
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> On 03/12/23 23:25, João Valverde wrote:
>     >>>> Hi,
>     >>>>
>     >>>> There are some changes in progress to the plugin registration
>     API that
>     >>>> break compatibility and require manual intervention from plugin
>     >>>> authors maintaining plugins out-of-tree. These changes are rather
>     >>>> minor and concern only plugin registration, not other APIs
>     accessible
>     >>>> to plugins.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> See MR 13524:
>     >>>> https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/merge_requests/13524
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Changes required are rewriting the registration code (very
>     easy to do
>     >>>> [1]) and declare (using a C enum) that the plugin is released
>     either
>     >>>> under GPLv2 or later, or a GPLv2 compatible license. The
>     other changes
>     >>>> to the ABI version number are
>     >>> The choice of the word "released" here was unfortunate,
>     because it may
>     >>> imply distribution. Please consider "licensed" instead.
>     >>>
>     >>> The license declaration field just affirms what was already
>     implicit:
>     >>> Wireshark plugins must use licensing terms compatible with the GPL
>     >>> version 2, so there is no policy change there.
>     >> GPL allows linking and using GPL-licensed software with
>     >> non-GPL-licensed software locally. This is an important use case of
>     >> many Wireshark users who do not wish releasing their plugins
>     and your
>     >> change broke that. Please revert it.
>     >>
>     >
>     > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
>
>     Also it does not require a GPL license, it requires a GPL-compatible
>     license, so you may just be confused.
>
>     >
>     >>>> currently not relevant to plugin authors (no policy change is
>     >>>> implied), it just uses less boilerplate with macros.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> This should improve the plug-in experience for both
>     developers and
>     >>>> users and may improve compatibility in the future.
>     >>
>     >>>> Comments welcome.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Regards,
>     >>>>
>     >>>> João
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     [1]https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/commit/90b16b40921b737aadf9186685d866fd80e37ee6#4a1fe9011e8240918e5fc6230c0bcd2e4d3b9c34
>
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     ___________________________________________________________________________
>
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list
>     <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     >>>> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
>     >>>> Unsubscribe:
>     https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>     >>>> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>     >>>
>     ___________________________________________________________________________
>
>     >>>
>     >>> Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list
>     <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     >>> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
>     >>> Unsubscribe:
>     https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>     >>> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>     >>
>     ___________________________________________________________________________
>
>     >>
>     >> Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list
>     <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     >> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
>     >> Unsubscribe:
>     https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>     >> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>     >
>     >
>     ___________________________________________________________________________
>
>     >
>     > Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list
>     <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     > Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
>     > Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>     > mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
>     ___________________________________________________________________________
>     Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
>     Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>                
>      mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>               mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe