Title: RE: [Ethereal-dev] Request: Change the allowed license of plugins
This is the part I just can't get past: If someone patents an idea, and then licenses it to someone else, they can transfer all the knowledge they have to the licensee without invalidating the patent. If the licensee doesn't perform according to the patent holder's wishes, the license can be revoked, and the former licensee would be in violation of the patent if they continue to use it. If a third party reverse engineers the patented idea, they are in violation of the patent. If a third party happens to independently produce a product which includes the patented idea, without knowledge of the patent, they are also in violation of the patent. It doesn't matter who has the information about the idea, it matters who holds the patent.
The whole point is that sharing information about the idea does not invalidate the patent. As I said before (and I'll stop saying it now), the whole reason for having a patent system is to allow ideas to be protected even in an environment where they are shared. Secrecy what the patent system is designed to eliminate.
If a certain company wants to share the decoding of their protocol, they must share the source code to the decoder, if the rest of the packet analyzer is GPL. If they want to retain the source code for some reason, they need to find or DEVELOP another packet analyzer with a license that is amenable to this. Such a company should not expect to be able to ride on the backs of the people who wrote Ethereal, and GPL-ed their code, while that company is not willing to GPL its own decoder. This is the spirit of the GPL. It's a shame if this costs Ethereal some nice decoders, but I think we have something much more valuable to protect: The GPL status of the best packet analyzer available, and the participation of a willing community which regularly contributes source code to support it.
No offense, but I think the lawyers are wrong, and I am against the license change. I don't want Ethereal to become marginalized. I'd rather turn down the non-GPL decoders.
-----Original Message-----
From: ddutt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:ddutt@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 1:41 AM
To: Graham Bloice
Cc: Ethereal-Dev@Ethereal. Com
Subject: RE: [Ethereal-dev] Request: Change the allowed license of
plugins
Hi Graham,
You cover a case that is applicable i.e. releasing information for a patent in
submission. However, even if the patent were granted, by releasing the source
code as GPL, the opinion of some lawyers is that the patent maybe invalidated.
Dinesh
Graham Bloice writes:
> > 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.
> >
>
> AFAIK this is a confusion between patents and trademarks. A patent can not
> be invalidated by not pursuing infringers, whereas a trademark can.
>
> I just don't see the problem for granted patents, but I do see a problem for
> patents currently in submission. In this case though shouldn't the patent
> owner then be extremely careful not to let information leak out as their
> patent could be invalidated by prior art.
>
> Regards,
>
> Graham Bloice
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ethereal-dev mailing list
> Ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev
--
Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
_______________________________________________
Ethereal-dev mailing list
Ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev
