Not answering the statement "Not the right thing to do" Den mån 4 dec. 2023 17:44João Valverde <j...@v6e.pt> skrev:
> > > On 04/12/23 16:30, Anders Broman wrote: > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=company+internal+use+of+gpl+code&oq=company+internal+use+of+gpl+code&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigAdIBCTIxMDcwajFqN6gCALACAA&client=ms-android-samsung-ss&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&chrome_dse_attribution=1 > > < > https://www.google.com/search?q=company+internal+use+of+gpl+code&oq=company+internal+use+of+gpl+code&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigAdIBCTIxMDcwajFqN6gCALACAA&client=ms-android-samsung-ss&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&chrome_dse_attribution=1> > > > > > > > For me it is no problem circumventing your code. I'm just questioning > > if it is the right thing for the project to do. > > I said "legally" preventing. Obviously technically anyone can circumvent > it. > > > That's it from me. > > Regards > > Anders > > > > Den mån 4 dec. 2023 17:24João Valverde <j...@v6e.pt> skrev: > > > > > > > > On 04/12/23 15:55, Martin Mathieson via Wireshark-dev wrote: > > > I have been doing internal Wireshark releases for years wherever > > I've > > > been working (as far as I know, they have never been sent > > outside of > > > the company). I have *never* used the plugin mechanism. I > > package up > > > the entire program, even if only one file has been changed. My > > > current company has acquired and merged with several other > > companies > > > and development groups - as far as I can tell, they all have a > > local > > > Wireshark person who does the same. If people are working > > > closely with me, we sometimes even just keep dissectors as part > > of the > > > test code for the project that uses them, and team members build it > > > themselves. > > > > > > Am I allowed to do this? > > > > In a strict legal sense I don't think you can use a GPL-incompatible > > license for your changes, but it doesn't really matter as long as you > > don't distribute it. Otherwise what does it matter which license > > it uses > > or if it doesn't have a license at all? There is no one to license it > > to. You are the only one using it and the GPL grants you the right to > > modify the software. You can grant yourself only a GPL-license for > > your > > modifications and no one else if it gives you peace of mind. :-) > > > > AFAIK there is also nothing legally preventing someone from > > rebuilding > > Wireshark with a modified source code to ignore the plugin license > > check > > and forget the whole issue, in the same conditions as above, as > > long as > > they don't distribute the proprietary plugin. The GPL violation only > > happens if you distribute your plugin using an incompatible license. > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 2:54 PM João Valverde <j...@v6e.pt> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 04/12/23 14:52, João Valverde wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 04/12/23 14:32, Anders Broman wrote: > > > >> Hi, > > > >> Company plug-ins may have restrictive license as the > > purpose is to > > > >> only use them internally no public usage "secret" code for > > > >> proprietary protocols under patents or IPL. Do we really > > want to > > > >> forbid that? In that case why should companies provide > > code to > > > >> Wireshark rather than just fork and build internally. > > > > > > > > I understand the argument and why that is a point of > > contention, > > > but > > > > that does not change the terms of the GPL which must be > abided > > > by even > > > > if this commit was never merged in the first place. > > > > > > > > I don't think it is a question of whether we want to > > forbid it, > > > it is > > > > whether we can allow it. I believe the answer to that is a > > clear > > > no if > > > > we want to respect the terms of the GPLv2 (and I'm fine with > > > that). I > > > > am not a license lawyer so this is just my understanding > > of the > > > > legalities involved. > > > > > > > ...nor any other kind of lawyer. :-) > > > > > > > There are many reasons why companies may choose to > > contribute or > > > not. > > > > Other companies may choose not to contribute to projects not > > > using the > > > > GPL. And individual developers may or may not want to > > > contribute. Etc. > > > > We can also debate that but it might veer off-topic. > > > > > > > >> Best regards > > > > > > > >> A ders > > > >> > > > >> Den mån 4 dec. 2023 15:22João Valverde <j...@v6e.pt> skrev: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 04/12/23 13:42, Anders Broman wrote: > > > >> > 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. > > > >> > > > >> My understanding is that this is permitted under the > > GPL if > > > using a > > > >> GPL-compatible license for your software. It's the main > > > difference > > > >> between the GPL and so-called "permissive" licenses. > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > 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. > > > >> > > > >> If you don't want to use the GPL you can choose a > > > GPL-compatible > > > >> license > > > >> (BSD for example, there are many) and register your > > plugin with > > > >> WS_PLUGIN_IS_GPLv2_COMPATIBLE. The SPDX ID is > > optional but > > > helpful. > > > >> > > > >> You may also use GPLv2 and just not distribute your > > binary > > > (in the > > > >> case > > > >> of businesses and corporations outside of the collective > > > entity that > > > >> legally comprises it). > > > >> > > > >> So it's not really restricting your freedom to use > > > Wireshark, it's > > > >> just > > > >> respecting the terms of the GPL under which developers > > > contribute > > > >> to the > > > >> project. > > > >> > > > >> This is my understanding of the terms under which I > > choose to > > > >> contribute > > > >> to Wireshark. If anyone has a better understanding or > > > reason why > > > >> this > > > >> interpretation of the GPL, that matches the FSF FAQ, > > is wrong, > > > >> please do > > > >> share. I'm very open to a good-faith discussion. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > 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 > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > > >> 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
