Do you really think this case is a "borderline" one if the plugin is
using the wireshark dissection API?
The FAQ pointed by Jaap is about the plug-in mechanism but the plugin is
linked with libwireshark which *is* GPLv2. Of course, if you're not
dissecting your protocol with the wireshark API, we might start again
this discussion but I doubt you can write a functional wireshark plugin
dissector without linking to libwireshark.
Regards,
Sebastien Tandel
Fulko.Hew@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 07/11/2007 01:16:26 PM:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Actually I disagree ;)
>>
>> From reading below the question is "is it an independent and separate
>> work"? The GNU FAQ says its not:
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
>
> Unfortunately, the FAQ is a FAQ and not the license.
>
> As you can see, this is someones interpretation of a vague agreement,
> just as mine is/was. Even the FAQ uses non-firm phrases like
> "we believe", and 'borderline case', then there will be questions.
>
> And thats why those 'interpretable' statements were removed from GPL 3.
>
>
>
> This document is strictly confidential and intended only for use by the addressee unless otherwise stated. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-dev mailing list
> Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
