On Aug 8, 2016, at 7:04 PM, João Valverde
wrote:
> See this for a practical concern about the GDFL:
>
> https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001
If Debian concluded that "GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are
free", then the GFDL would be OK only if we make sure there are no
On 08/09/2016 02:52 AM, Guy Harris wrote:
On Aug 8, 2016, at 6:30 PM, João Valverde
wrote:
What license, if any, should we put on our man pages?
I think we can just use the standard Wireshark GPLv2+ header here, with
copyright to Gerald and contributors.
Is the GPL an appropriate licen
On Aug 8, 2016, at 6:30 PM, João Valverde
wrote:
>> What license, if any, should we put on our man pages?
>
> I think we can just use the standard Wireshark GPLv2+ header here, with
> copyright to Gerald and contributors.
Is the GPL an appropriate license for documentation, or would the GFDL
On 08/05/2016 10:31 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
On Aug 5, 2016, at 12:17 PM, João Valverde
wrote:
The Debian licensecheck.pl version prior to the Smedegaard take over was
standalone. I think we should import that to tools.
We might still want to look over the list of files currently being comp
On Aug 8, 2016, at 3:46 PM, João Valverde
wrote:
> We can either add a path-specific exception for this saying "BSD GPLv2 is
> really just BSD for these files" or fix licensecheck.pl to be smarter about
> it.
I vote, as you might expect, for the second choice:
https://code.wireshark.
On 08/08/2016 11:15 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
On Aug 8, 2016, at 3:10 PM, João Valverde
wrote:
Mainly what I was trying to say is that this dual licensing distinction can
already be handled with path-specific exceptions so I guess I'm indifferent to
adding more code for this.
I view path-sp
On Aug 8, 2016, at 3:10 PM, João Valverde
wrote:
> Mainly what I was trying to say is that this dual licensing distinction can
> already be handled with path-specific exceptions so I guess I'm indifferent
> to adding more code for this.
I view path-specific exceptions as workarounds for defic
On 08/08/2016 10:59 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
On Aug 8, 2016, at 12:12 PM, João Valverde
wrote:
On 08/08/2016 07:38 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
On Aug 8, 2016, at 11:00 AM, João Valverde
wrote:
There's a difference between "choose license A or B" and "this code is license A and
that addition i
On Aug 8, 2016, at 12:12 PM, João Valverde
wrote:
> On 08/08/2016 07:38 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 8, 2016, at 11:00 AM, João Valverde
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> There's a difference between "choose license A or B" and "this code is
>>> license A and that addition is license B".
>>
>> The
Hi,
Yes, you could raise a bug. Or try to submit a change rewording this text.
Thanks,
Jaap
On 06-08-16 12:16, Paul Offord wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> README.dissector describes two accessor functions that access null terminated
> strings and return the string length. The document says:
>
>
>
On 08/08/2016 05:58 PM, Pascal Quantin wrote:
Hi João,
2016-08-08 18:52 GMT+02:00 João Valverde
mailto:joao.valve...@tecnico.ulisboa.pt>>:
Is moving to Lua 5.3 something we should look into?
The 64 bit integer support seems really promising.
Hariel explained us that Lua 5.3 was a c
On 08/08/2016 08:12 PM, João Valverde wrote:
On 08/08/2016 07:38 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
On Aug 8, 2016, at 11:00 AM, João Valverde
wrote:
On 08/08/2016 06:42 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
On Aug 8, 2016, at 9:00 AM, João Valverde
wrote:
Is there some reason not to treat "you can license thi
On 08/08/2016 07:38 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
On Aug 8, 2016, at 11:00 AM, João Valverde
wrote:
On 08/08/2016 06:42 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
On Aug 8, 2016, at 9:00 AM, João Valverde
wrote:
Is there some reason not to treat "you can license this under the BSD license or
under the GPL" as
> On Aug 8, 2016, at 11:00 AM, João Valverde
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 08/08/2016 06:42 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>> On Aug 8, 2016, at 9:00 AM, João Valverde
>> wrote:
>>
Is there some reason not to treat "you can license this under the BSD
license or under the GPL" as an acceptable lice
On 08/08/2016 06:42 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
On Aug 8, 2016, at 9:00 AM, João Valverde
wrote:
Is there some reason not to treat "you can license this under the BSD license or
under the GPL" as an acceptable license?
Please review https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/16957/.
That's still
On Aug 8, 2016, at 9:00 AM, João Valverde
wrote:
>> Is there some reason not to treat "you can license this under the BSD
>> license or under the GPL" as an acceptable license?
>
> Please review https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/16957/.
That's still special-casing the dual-licensed files;
Hi João,
2016-08-08 18:52 GMT+02:00 João Valverde :
> Is moving to Lua 5.3 something we should look into?
>
> The 64 bit integer support seems really promising.
>
Hariel explained us that Lua 5.3 was a completely different language (a bit
like what you have between Python 2.X and 3.X). You can f
Is moving to Lua 5.3 something we should look into?
The 64 bit integer support seems really promising.
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: http
On 08/05/2016 10:31 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
On Aug 5, 2016, at 12:17 PM, João Valverde
wrote:
The Debian licensecheck.pl version prior to the Smedegaard take over was
standalone. I think we should import that to tools.
We might still want to look over the list of files currently being comp
On Sat, Aug 06, 2016 at 08:34:10PM -0700, Guy Harris wrote:
>
> > On Aug 6, 2016, at 8:22 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 6, 2016, at 7:47 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
> >
> >> It also fails on an Ubuntu 14.10 system; the TShark build information is:
> >>
> >>TShark (Wireshark) 2.3.0 (v2.3.
Thanks Pascal,
I think you are right. I’ll rethink my code.
Best regards…Paul
From: wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org
[mailto:wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org] On Behalf Of Pascal Quantin
Sent: 07 August 2016 20:52
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Reg
21 matches
Mail list logo
