Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

On 04/12/23 22:57, Gerald Combs wrote: On 12/4/23 12:43 PM, João Valverde wrote: On 04/12/23 18:45, Gerald Combs wrote: The FAQ entry below makes it clear that developing an internal version of Wireshark is permitted, and that "within an organization" counts as "internal." As far as I know

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

On 12/4/23 12:43 PM, João Valverde wrote: On 04/12/23 18:45, Gerald Combs wrote: The FAQ entry below makes it clear that developing an internal version of Wireshark is permitted, and that "within an organization" counts as "internal." As far as I know the GPL doesn't place any restrictions

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

On 04/12/23 18:45, Gerald Combs wrote: The FAQ entry below makes it clear that developing an internal version of Wireshark is permitted, and that "within an organization" counts as "internal." As far as I know the GPL doesn't place any restrictions on making an internal combined work with

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

The FAQ entry below makes it clear that developing an internal version of Wireshark is permitted, and that "within an organization" counts as "internal." As far as I know the GPL doesn't place any restrictions on making an internal combined work with GPL and non-GPL software, so writing a

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

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,

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

Not answering the statement "Not the right thing to do" Den mån 4 dec. 2023 17:44João Valverde skrev: > > > On 04/12/23 16:30, Anders Broman wrote: > > >

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

On 04/12/23 16:30, Anders Broman wrote: https://www.google.com/search?q=company+internal+use+of+gpl+code=company+internal+use+of+gpl+code_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigAdIBCTIxMDcwajFqN6gCALACAA=ms-android-samsung-ss=chrome-mobile=UTF-8_dse_attribution=1

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

The GPL FAQ discusses this: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#InternalDistribution Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company “distribution”? (#InternalDistribution ) No, in that case the

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

I think we are diverting the discussion here. While I agree with the factual representation of GPLs copyleft, I disagree with how it is enforced here. It can be the longterm goal that we enforce it, but as a first step it should be a warning not an error. This would allow companies to

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

https://www.google.com/search?q=company+internal+use+of+gpl+code=company+internal+use+of+gpl+code_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigAdIBCTIxMDcwajFqN6gCALACAA=ms-android-samsung-ss=chrome-mobile=UTF-8_dse_attribution=1 For me it is no problem circumventing your code. I'm just questioning if it

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

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,

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

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. 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

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 9:53 AM 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

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

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

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

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?

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

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

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

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

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

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

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

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. 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

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

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

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

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

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

On 04/12/23 12:19, João Valverde wrote: On 04/12/23 12:12, Bálint Réczey wrote: João Valverde 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

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

On 04/12/23 12:12, Bálint Réczey wrote: João Valverde 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

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

I do not think we need to revert the whole change. I actually like the way the new version check is implemented and think it is beneficial to a lot of users, because it will reduce the number of changes they have to make in order to update their version. But I do think the enforcement of licenses

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

João Valverde 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

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

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,

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

On 04/12/23 10:09, Bálint Réczey wrote: On 2023. Dec 4., Mon at 10:02, João Valverde wrote: Hi, The GPL never allowed for that, as far as I know. See: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL In this case Wireshark is a library for plug-ins. What you

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

On 2023. Dec 4., Mon at 10:02, João Valverde wrote: > Hi, > > The GPL never allowed for that, as far as I know. See: > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL > > In this case Wireshark is a library for plug-ins. > > What you can do is not distribute the (private-use) plug-in,

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

Hi, The GPL never allowed for that, as far as I know. See: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL In this case Wireshark is a library for plug-ins. What you can do is not distribute the (private-use) plug-in, and therefore you do not have a requirement to make the source

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Changes to the plugin registration API

On Dec 3, 2023, at 10:30 PM, Anders Broman wrote: > Does this mean that we are no longer allowing private closed source plug-ins > not distributed outside of companies? To quote the GPL v2 FAQ's question+answer "When is a program and its plug-ins considered a single combined program?":