On 04/12/23 16:21, Anders Broman wrote:
Hi,
My understanding of the GPL is that for company internal additions to
GPL SW there is no obligation to GPL those changes nor distribute any
SW copy.
There's no meaningful distinction between companies and individuals.
There's just licensees, they can be both.
You have the right to modify the source code so that is correct. Maybe
WS_PLUGIN_NO_LICENSE_GRANTED or WS_PLUGIN_PRIVATE_USE would be an
acceptable compromise for private use without being forced to choose a
software license.
Regardless I question why we should make it harder for people to do
private plug-ins. Isn't the mission statement take it easier to
understand what's going on in your network. Surely it applies to
companies too. Why should we play lawyers? Sue the ones breaking the
license.
Best regards
Anders
Den mån 4 dec. 2023 17:11Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws@xxxxxxxxx> skrev:
On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 9:53 AM João Valverde <j@xxxxxx> 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.
I agree: I think the GPL is pretty clear here and AFAIK we don't
grant an exception.
That being said, when I used to create custom/proprietary
dissectors (that, frankly, were only of interest to people working
for my employer), those dissectors were (intentionally) GPL. Any
co-employee (to whom I gave the binary) was free to have the
source code (and also free to do what they want with it). Since
there was genuinely no concern about them sharing said source code
(no real risk if they did, but also no reason for them to do it),
no additional restrictions were put in place.
If, OTOH, there were significant secrets or proprietary
information in those dissectors, one could /imagine/ that those
co-employees/users might have had an additional /condition of
employment/ (or similar, as long as it does not affect the source
license!) that they do not share this proprietary code. I believe
this is similar to how Red Hat is getting away with restricting
access to RHEL source code: the software license says you can do
what you want with it, but if you share it then Red Hat is free to
revoke your support contract (or whatever).
___________________________________________________________________________
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