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
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.
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
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
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
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;
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 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 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 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 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
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 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
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 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 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 3:46 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 08/05/2016 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 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 08/09/2016 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 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
21 matches
Mail list logo
