Sebastien Tandel schrieb:
> Phillip Paradis wrote:
>
>> One might be able to do as Nvidia/ATI et. al. do with their drivers.
>>
>
> Just to mention that it won't be possible anymore to load a non-GPL
> module into the kernel after the 1st January 2008. It seems that kernel
> people (probab
Phillip Paradis wrote:
> One might be able to do as Nvidia/ATI et. al. do with their drivers.
Just to mention that it won't be possible anymore to load a non-GPL
module into the kernel after the 1st January 2008. It seems that kernel
people (probably assisted by lawyers) have decided that non-GPL
Phillip Paradis wrote:
> One might be able to do as Nvidia/ATI et. al. do with their drivers. Create
> the plug-in itself as a generic binary module which decodes blocks of data;
> it would make no use of the Wireshark APIs and cannot include or link with
> any GPL code. Then create a stub that fit
> One might be able to do as Nvidia/ATI et. al. do with their drivers.
> Create
> the plug-in itself as a generic binary module which decodes blocks of data;
That's the point ... block of datas ... where do they come from? And
after, how are you passing your decode data to tshark to be able to
o
One might be able to do as Nvidia/ATI et. al. do with their drivers. Create
the plug-in itself as a generic binary module which decodes blocks of data;
it would make no use of the Wireshark APIs and cannot include or link with
any GPL code. Then create a stub that fits between Wireshark's APIs and
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Stratemeier, Frank wrote:
> Wouldn't it be technically possible (with modifications, of course) to
> link the code not statically but dynamically?
It's already linked dynamically, and it's still a combined work in the
eyes of the GPL.
___
07
An: Developer support list for Wireshark ; [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: [Wireshark-dev] GPL license question
Essentially, you cannot comply with point in a Wireshark plug-in DLL; in
order to compile the DLL, you must have the Wireshark source available, parts
of which are linked into the DL
On 7/11/07, Ulf Lamping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Warnes schrieb:
> > Unfortunately this appears to be the case, which is possibly a shame as
> >
> I wouldn't call the GPL a shame ;-)
>
> > we have a bunch of plug-in dissectors we would willingly release for
> > free download, but it woul
Essentially, you cannot comply with point in a Wireshark plug-in DLL; in
order to compile the DLL, you must have the Wireshark source available,
parts of which are linked into the DLL. As Wireshark is GPL, so is the DLL.
--
Phil
On 7/11/07 8:46 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree 100%
... and challenging doesn't even begin to describe it, I've beaten my
head head against a brick wall for 5 years trying to get them to agree
to release source to the dissectors we've written, even arguing the
exact same points you've mentioned.
My boss is converted! lawyers unfort
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/11/2007 01:16:26 PM:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Actually I disagree ;)
>>
>> From reading below the question is "is it an independent and separate
>> work"? The GNU FAQ says its not:
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
>
> Unf
Martin Warnes schrieb:
> Unfortunately this appears to be the case, which is possibly a shame as
>
I wouldn't call the GPL a shame ;-)
> we have a bunch of plug-in dissectors we would willingly release for
> free download, but it would be a cold day in hell before our lawyers
> agreed to rele
Unfortunately this appears to be the case, which is possibly a shame as
we have a bunch of plug-in dissectors we would willingly release for
free download, but it would be a cold day in hell before our lawyers
agreed to release the source code, even though I doubt there's anything
of proprietr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/11/2007 03:44:13 PM:
> Do you really think this case is a "borderline" one if the plugin is
> using the wireshark dissection API?
No, I am not saying anything. I don't know enough about the details
of Wireshark plug-in/dissector development. I'm still trying to f
Do you really think this case is a "borderline" one if the plugin is
using the wireshark dissection API?
The FAQ pointed by Jaap is about the plug-in mechanism but the plugin is
linked with libwireshark which *is* GPLv2. Of course, if you're not
dissecting your protocol with the wireshark API, we
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/11/2007 01:16:26 PM:
> Hi,
>
> Actually I disagree ;)
>
> From reading below the question is "is it an independent and separate
> work"? The GNU FAQ says its not:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
Unfortunately, the FAQ is a FAQ and not the
Hi,
Actually I disagree ;)
From reading below the question is "is it an independent and separate
work"? The GNU FAQ says its not:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
Thanx,
Jaap
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/11/2007 10:45:27 AM:
>
>> No, you c
Doesn't developing a dissector or a plug-in for wireshark always
involve including/linking code from the core of wireshark? That would
make any plug-in a derivative work of wireshark which is GPL'ed and
hence the derivative work must also be distributed under GPL?
On 7/11/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[E
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/11/2007 10:45:27 AM:
> No, you can't keep the code for you nor limit the distribution of the
> plugin object code. It is the basic principle of the GPL. If you're
> distributing/selling your plugin, you have to distribute the code. And
> everyone receiving (paying f
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 10:29:44AM -0400, Jon Andersen wrote:
> If I write a plugin for Wireshark, which compiles to a plugin DLL only, and
> then I distribute the plugin DLL, am I required by the GPL license to
> distribute the source (and for anyone I distribute it to, they can
> redistribute the
No, you can't keep the code for you nor limit the distribution of the
plugin object code. It is the basic principle of the GPL. If you're
distributing/selling your plugin, you have to distribute the code. And
everyone receiving (paying for) this code may distribute it again and
again ... without yo
I'm concerned about the requirements of the GPLv2 license.
If I write a plugin for Wireshark, which compiles to a plugin DLL only, and
then I distribute the plugin DLL, am I required by the GPL license to
distribute the source (and for anyone I distribute it to, they can
redistribute the source e
22 matches
Mail list logo
