[João Valverde <j@xxxxxx>]

On 04/12/23 14:52, João Valverde wrote:
> On 04/12/23 14:32, Anders Broman wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Company plug-ins may have restrictive license as the purpose is to 
> > only use them internally no public usage "secret" code for 
> > proprietary protocols under patents or IPL. Do we really want to 
> > forbid that? In that case why should companies provide code to 
> > Wireshark rather than just fork and build internally.
>
> I understand the argument and why that is a point of contention, but 
> that does not change the terms of the GPL which must be abided by even 
> if this commit was never merged in the first place.
>
> I don't think it is a question of whether we want to forbid it, it is 
> whether we can allow it. I believe the answer to that is a clear no if 
> we want to respect the terms of the GPLv2 (and I'm fine with that). I 
> am not a license lawyer so this is just my understanding of the 
> legalities involved.
...nor any other kind of lawyer. :-)

> There are many reasons why companies may choose to contribute or not. 
> Other companies may choose not to contribute to projects not using the 
> GPL. And individual developers may or may not want to contribute. Etc. 
> We can also debate that but it might veer off-topic.
>
> > Best regards
>
> > A ders
> >
> > Den mån 4 dec. 2023 15:22João Valverde <j@xxxxxx> skrev:
> >
> >
> >
> >     On 04/12/23 13:42, Anders Broman wrote:
> >     > 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.
> >
> >     My understanding is that this is permitted under the GPL if using a
> >     GPL-compatible license for your software. It's the main difference
> >     between the GPL and so-called "permissive" licenses.
> >
> >     >
> >     > 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.
> >
> >     If you don't want to use the GPL you can choose a GPL-compatible
> >     license
> >     (BSD for example, there are many) and register your plugin with
> >     WS_PLUGIN_IS_GPLv2_COMPATIBLE. The SPDX ID is optional but helpful.
> >
> >     You may also use GPLv2 and just not distribute your binary (in the
> >     case
> >     of businesses and corporations outside of the collective entity that
> >     legally comprises it).
> >
> >     So it's not really restricting your freedom to use Wireshark, it's
> >     just
> >     respecting the terms of the GPL under which developers contribute
> >     to the
> >     project.
> >
> >     This is my understanding of the terms under which I choose to
> >     contribute
> >     to Wireshark. If anyone has a better understanding or reason why 
> > this
> >     interpretation of the GPL, that matches the FSF FAQ, is wrong,
> >     please do
> >     share. I'm very open to a good-faith discussion.
> >
> >
> >     > 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
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> > ___________________________________________________________________________
> >     > 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