On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Either writing a plugin for a Cisco protocol is a controlled use of > > the patent, or it's not. If it's not, then Cisco's request doesn't > > make sense. > > It is not the writing of the decoder of a protocol that is the problem. > It is > its release under GPL and its effect on patent invalidation that is the > problem. >
This is clearly a lawyer problem, not a GPL problem. Either the plugin is covered by the patent or not. If it is not, then there is no way the GPL can invalidate the patent, and there is no need to change the license. If the plugin is covered by the patent, then no one except Cisco or a patent licensee is allowed to write any plugin, under any license at all, that decodes Cisco-patented protocols. The fact that the GPL mentions the word "patent" isn't really relevant, since the logic applies to all licenses. OTOH, if there are other, non-Cisco FUD related reasons to change the license, that's a different matter. Something to consider : Having the GPL on a successful application like Ethereal puts a great deal of pressure on vendors to donate source code. This results in a higher-quality product for users, and makes it easier for Ethereal developers to evolve the code without stranding users. Changing the license removes that pressure, and results in binary-only plugins and all the pain that implies. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, it's still possible (maybe, see patent isssues above) to release an open source plugin if there is a binary plugin available, but why not keep up the pressure to have source code released in the first place?
