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
