Hi,
2014-08-20 18:36 GMT+02:00 ronnie sahlberg :
> I think the biggest gotcha with LGPLv3 is that it is no longer
> compatible with GPLv2 only code.
> Wireshark does not have any GPLv2only code right? If not, we should be ok.
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Evan Huus wrote:
>> http://blog.qt
I think the biggest gotcha with LGPLv3 is that it is no longer
compatible with GPLv2 only code.
Wireshark does not have any GPLv2only code right? If not, we should be ok.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Evan Huus wrote:
> http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2014/08/20/adding-lgpl-v3-to-qt/
>
> I don't
http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2014/08/20/adding-lgpl-v3-to-qt/
I don't *think* this affects us, but I haven't thought about it too hard.
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list
Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/lists/
> Frankly, conversation structures shouldn't have per-packet data in
> them at all; this was probably the easiest way to fix the fuzz
> failure, but it really seems odd to me that it even needs to be done.
> Thoughts?
True. Per-packet data shouldn't be part of the conversation struct. I'm
working
