Unfortunately this appears to be the case, which is possibly a shame as
we have a bunch of plug-in dissectors we would willingly release for
free download, but it would be a cold day in hell before our lawyers
agreed to release the source code, even though I doubt there's anything
of proprietry value in there.
-- Martin
Jaap Keuter wrote the following on 07/11/2007 06:16 PM:
Hi,
Actually I disagree ;)
From reading below the question is "is it an independent and separate
work"? The GNU FAQ says its not:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
Thanx,
Jaap
Fulko.Hew@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 07/11/2007 10:45:27 AM:
No, you can't keep the code for you nor limit the distribution of the
plugin object code. It is the basic principle of the GPL. If you're
distributing/selling your plugin, you have to distribute the code. And
everyone receiving (paying for) this code may distribute it again and
again ... without your permission :)
Actually, I'd dissagree. With GPL v2, there is a clause that a
developer can invoke if they write their code appropriately,
and if the 'infrastructure' can support it.
GPL 2 Section 2 paragraph 2, 3 and 4 cover this aspect.
(Note GPL v3, no longer appears to have these clauses.)
Basically...
a) if the infrastructure can support 3rd party code invoked
dynamically at run time, and
b) if the infrastructure does not 'depend' on the 3rd party
code for its operation, and
c) if your code is not statically linked with GPL'ed code
then you can release a binary-only version of your code without
providing source.
So to paraphrase:
- if Wireshark isn't linked with your code, and
- Wireshark can still function without your code, and
- your code isn't linked to GPL'ed code, and
- someone can replace your code with an equivalent (but seperately
developed) module
then your OK.
FYI. Those paragraphs state:
"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from
the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent
and separate works in themselves, then this License, and
its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute
them as separate works. But when you distribute the same
sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the
Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms
of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend
to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part
regardless of who wrote it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or
contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather,
the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution
of derivative or collective works based on the Program.\
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the
Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program)
on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring
the other work under the scope of this License."
Jon Andersen wrote:
I'm concerned about the requirements of the GPLv2 license.
If I write a plugin for Wireshark, which compiles to a plugin DLL only,
and then I distribute the plugin DLL, am I required by the GPL license
to distribute the source (and for anyone I distribute it to, they can
redistribute the source even if I don't want them to)?
I'm wondering if I can legally distribute only the plugin DLL (and
limit
the distribution of it), and not distribute the source at all.
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
��������������������������������������������jy�u�����U����2�צ�m���� �rV�j��z�b��,� ڶ�V���]jם�g�&�u�^����m4
----------------------------------------------------------
Scanned by ClamAV antivirus system - http://www.clamav.net
Virus signatures last updated: Wed Jul 11 18:33:21 2007
