> In order to proceed with this, Ethereal's copyright holders need to
> agree on a final objective. Do we simply want ClearSight to stop
> infringement? Do we want them to open the source of Analyzer? Do we
> want damages? Should they be allowed to keep doing what they're
> doing, provided they pay a licensing fee?
I am against allowing them to continue this course of action but pay a royalty. The GPL requires them to disclose source, and that is the standard they should be held to. Also, if there was some collective decision to allow them to use the product under a different license (which would be highly unlikely given the number of copyright holders), there would need to be an ongoing enforcement action -- how many products did they ship this quarter? Did they pay the Ethereal Organization this month? If not, then we would have to decide whether to drag them back into court. I would rather see them held to the existing license (force them to disclose or discontinue use). And if that involves going to court, there should be damages.
Devin Heitmueller
Senior Software Engineer
Netilla Networks Inc.
