Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
From: João Valverde <j@xxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2023 16:43:25 +0000
On 04/12/23 16:30, Anders Broman wrote:
https://www.google.com/search?q=company+internal+use+of+gpl+code&oq=company+internal+use+of+gpl+code&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigAdIBCTIxMDcwajFqN6gCALACAA&client=ms-android-samsung-ss&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&chrome_dse_attribution=1 <https://www.google.com/search?q=company+internal+use+of+gpl+code&oq=company+internal+use+of+gpl+code&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigAdIBCTIxMDcwajFqN6gCALACAA&client=ms-android-samsung-ss&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&chrome_dse_attribution=1>For me it is no problem circumventing your code. I'm just questioning if it is the right thing for the project to do.
I said "legally" preventing. Obviously technically anyone can circumvent it.
That's it from me.
Regards
Anders
Den mån 4 dec. 2023 17:24João Valverde <j@xxxxxx> skrev:
On 04/12/23 15:55, Martin Mathieson via Wireshark-dev wrote:
> I have been doing internal Wireshark releases for years wherever
I've
> been working (as far as I know, they have never been sent
outside of
> the company). I have *never* used the plugin mechanism. I
package up
> the entire program, even if only one file has been changed. My
> current company has acquired and merged with several other
companies
> and development groups - as far as I can tell, they all have a
local
> Wireshark person who does the same. If people are working
> closely with me, we sometimes even just keep dissectors as part
of the
> test code for the project that uses them, and team members build it
> themselves.
>
> Am I allowed to do this?
In a strict legal sense I don't think you can use a GPL-incompatible
license for your changes, but it doesn't really matter as long as you
don't distribute it. Otherwise what does it matter which license
it uses
or if it doesn't have a license at all? There is no one to license it
to. You are the only one using it and the GPL grants you the right to
modify the software. You can grant yourself only a GPL-license for
your
modifications and no one else if it gives you peace of mind. :-)
AFAIK there is also nothing legally preventing someone from
rebuilding
Wireshark with a modified source code to ignore the plugin license
check
and forget the whole issue, in the same conditions as above, as
long as
they don't distribute the proprietary plugin. The GPL violation only
happens if you distribute your plugin using an incompatible license.
> Martin
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 2:54 PM João Valverde <j@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
> >
>
>
___________________________________________________________________________
> 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
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
- From: Anders Broman
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
- References:
- [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
- From: João Valverde
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
- From: João Valverde
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
- From: Bálint Réczey
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
- From: João Valverde
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
- From: João Valverde
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
- From: Roland Knall
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
- From: João Valverde
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
- From: Anders Broman
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
- From: João Valverde
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
- From: Anders Broman
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
- From: João Valverde
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
- From: João Valverde
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
- From: Martin Mathieson
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
- From: João Valverde
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
- From: Anders Broman
- [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
- Prev by Date: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
- Next by Date: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
- Previous by thread: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
- Next by thread: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API
- Index(es):