Some interesting comments on the ClearSight situation ...
Regards
-----
Richard Sharpe, rsharpe[at]richardsharpe.com, rsharpe[at]samba.org,
sharpe[at]ethereal.com, http://www.richardsharpe.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:41:49 +1000
From: Martin Pool <mbp@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Richard Sharpe <rsharpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: samba-team@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Ethereal-dev] ClearSight/GPL update (fwd)
On 11 Apr 2004, Richard Sharpe <rsharpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think Paul's mail is pretty wise.
> It seems that ClearSight's only action has been to modify Ethereal to be
> an OLE server and thus change the method of interface with ClearSight's
> product. Even if it functions as an out-of-process OLE server, it seems to
> me that one can clearly see their action as simply trying to use a
> programming method to avoid copyright law and they have not fundamentally
> changed the product. It still seems to depend almost totally on Ethereal.
>
> While I understand that legal issues are complicated, can anyone tell me
> what they think about simply changing the interface to try to avoid
> copyright law?
I think the heart of the matter is whether they have created a
derivative work from Ethereal, or whether they have created a new work
which happens to talk to Ethereal. (Clearly the OLE server itself is
a derivative work. But is ClearSight as a whole a single work that
incorporates Ethereal?)
If the OLE interface is only called by ClearSight, and they package it
as just a single work, and they don't make the Ethereal module
available separately then it looks like a single work to me.
The other question I suppose you should think about is what outcome
you want. Do you want them to just stop using Ethereal? Do you want
them to pay for a dual licence? Is there some code in their product
that you want them to open up?
Note that they have *already* lost their licence to redistribute
Ethereal because of the original violation. This OLE trick is only
allowed if the Ethereal copyright holders permit it. You can simply
tell them not to distribute at all, at which point arguments about OLE
don't matter. The copyright holder already has absolute discretion
here.
---------------
Regards
-----
Richard Sharpe, rsharpe[at]richardsharpe.com, rsharpe[at]samba.org,
sharpe[at]ethereal.com, http://www.richardsharpe.com
