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 and I see no point/gain in doing so. Best regards Anders Den mån 4 dec. 2023 14:05João Valverde <j...@v6e.pt> skrev: > 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 our license requirements is wrong or flawed. It is > not OK for you to exempt some use-case from the license terms under > which every developer contributes to this project. > > Gerald can revert it if he wishes and I will respect it. As project lead > he can make that call. > > On 04/12/23 12:35, Roland Knall wrote: > > 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 those modifications at all, and going from > > the point that they change the CMakeListsCustom.txt files, one could > > argue, that this is not a source code modification in the sense meant > > by the gpl license. > > > > Joao, I agree with having a clear path for license application, and I > > also agree that we should be prudent on what parts a user can use and > > which he can't. I would even be ok if we have a warning in the > > build-process, explicitly stating that the code being linked is not > > fully compliant and therefore not allowed to be distributed. But I > > strongly disagree cutting off the leg we are standing on just on pure > > principle. The corporate users are a HUGE part of our userbase. And if > > we go down this route, we need to have a proper discussion about this. > > Just adding license enforcement without having the discussion is NOT > > the way to move forward here. > > > > Please add another patch, which keeps the ABI versioning in (which I > > really appreciate and think is a good thing to do), but reverts the > > enforcement of the licenses. Then we can start to properly discuss how > > to move forward with this topic. It will - most likely - require a > > vote by the technical steering comittee. > > > > kind regards > > Roland > > > > Am Mo., 4. Dez. 2023 um 13:23 Uhr schrieb João Valverde <j...@v6e.pt>: > > > > > > > > On 04/12/23 12:19, João Valverde wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 04/12/23 12:12, Bálint Réczey wrote: > > >> João Valverde <j...@v6e.pt> 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 out-of-tree. These changes are > rather > > >>>> minor and concern only plugin registration, not other APIs > > accessible > > >>>> to plugins. > > >>>> > > >>>> See MR 13524: > > >>>> https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/merge_requests/13524 > > >>>> > > >>>> Changes required are rewriting the registration code (very > > easy to do > > >>>> [1]) and declare (using a C enum) that the plugin is released > > either > > >>>> under GPLv2 or later, or a GPLv2 compatible license. The > > other changes > > >>>> to the ABI version number are > > >>> The choice of the word "released" here was unfortunate, > > because it may > > >>> imply distribution. Please consider "licensed" instead. > > >>> > > >>> The license declaration field just affirms what was already > > implicit: > > >>> Wireshark plugins must use licensing terms compatible with the > GPL > > >>> version 2, so there is no policy change there. > > >> GPL allows linking and using GPL-licensed software with > > >> non-GPL-licensed software locally. This is an important use case > of > > >> many Wireshark users who do not wish releasing their plugins > > and your > > >> change broke that. Please revert it. > > >> > > > > > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL > > > > Also it does not require a GPL license, it requires a GPL-compatible > > license, so you may just be confused. > > > > > > > >>>> currently not relevant to plugin authors (no policy change is > > >>>> implied), it just uses less boilerplate with macros. > > >>>> > > >>>> This should improve the plug-in experience for both > > developers and > > >>>> users and may improve compatibility in the future. > > >> > > >>>> Comments welcome. > > >>>> > > >>>> Regards, > > >>>> > > >>>> João > > >>>> > > >>>> > > [1] > https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/commit/90b16b40921b737aadf9186685d866fd80e37ee6#4a1fe9011e8240918e5fc6230c0bcd2e4d3b9c34 > > > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list > > <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> > > >>>> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > > >>>> Unsubscribe: > > https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > > >>>> mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe > > >>> > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > > > >>> > > >>> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list > > <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> > > >>> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > > >>> Unsubscribe: > > https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > > >>> mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe > > >> > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > > > >> > > >> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list > > <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> > > >> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > > >> Unsubscribe: > > https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > > >> mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe > > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list > > <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> > > > Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > > > Unsubscribe: > https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > > > mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org > > > > Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > > Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > > > > mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> > > Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > > Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > > mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org > ?subject=unsubscribe > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> > Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org > ?subject=unsubscribe >
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
