Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] Licensing/Distribution Question
Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.
From: Ashok Narayanan <ashokn@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 12:58:16 -0400
I'm sure you will get lots of IANAL replies, so let me throw mine in as well. Note: I actually spoke with a lawyer about this exact same issue (though not regarding Ethereal). But not everything here is from the lawyer; seek your own legal advice. The short answer is, if you are using it internal to your company then you are not required to redistribute source to your modifications to the general public. But, if you redistribute the modified binary to *anyone* outside your company, you must then license this binary under the GPL (and only the GPL), which means that you must then make available the modified source to the third party, and you may not restrict him from sharing it with *everyone* outside your company. The GPL only requires you to make source available for software that you are *redistributing* to external entities. Two useful pointers are here: http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic which says "an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization." and here (discussion of the old Apple APSL license 1.x): http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/historical-apsl.html which describes an incompatibility as this: " The APSL does not allow you to make a modified version and use it for your own private purposes, without publishing your changes. " This implies that the GPL does *not* make this requirement. Now, the GPL doesn't make a statement about the fact that "you" can be an organization, but this is how it was explained to me. - If your modifications are copyright to the company (e.g. in my case "(C) Ashok Narayanan, Cisco Systems", then your company holds part copyright to the changes (or full copyright, depending on your employee agreement). Licenses such as the GPL are only used to transfer rights to people who do *not* hold the copyright. Therefore, anybody in your company does not require any license to use the modifications in question, and neither do you require a license to redistribute this to anybody in your company. However, you then cannot claim any personal ownership of this code once you leave the company. The GPL makes this sort of claim irrelevant, of course. - If your modifications are copyright to you personally (e.g. "(C) Ashok Narayanan", and you wish to maintain this copyright for yourself (and not share it with the company) then you will need to license your modifications to your company using the GPL. You must then make the source available to your company and you cannot forbid your company from redistributing it to anybody (via license). You can however, forbid people in your company from redistributing this outside the company via an internal corporate directive. Also, if you leave the company you could claim personal ownership of the code. The GPL makes this sort of claim irrelevant, of course. -Ashok On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 12:57:33PM -0400, Dave Shawley wrote: > I got a question about about distributing Ethereal as an internal tool > for our field support guys. We have a number of proprietary protocols > that I have written dissectors for. I have been using it for my own > debugging purposes since I am responsible for writing the protocol > servers. Anyway, if we wanted to distribute Ethereal internally what > are the distribution requirements since it is GPLed? > > I guess that my real question is: do we have to distribute the source > for our dissectors or is it legal to release binary form dissectors if > we provide links to the source for Ethereal? > > Now for the real story... my manager really wants to distribute Ethereal > since it is a *very* useful debugging tool. She thinks that since it is > an internal distribution, we shouldn't have to divulge the source for > our dissectors. I'm pretty sure we have to distribute the source but I > figured that I would ask anyway. > > Now if we do have to distribute the source, is it legal to to dist the > source on the same disk? I think that our lawyers will go for this one > since the disks are only available to our internal FEs. Anyway, I need > some response on this from the legalease on this list. > > Thanks, > > Dave Shawley > -- > > _______________________________________________ > Ethereal-dev mailing list > Ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev -- --- Asok the Intern ---------------------------------------- Ashok Narayanan IOS Network Protocols, Cisco Systems 1414 Mass Ave, Boxborough MA 01719 Ph: 978-936-1608. Fax: 978-936-2218 (Attn: Ashok Narayanan)
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Ethereal-dev] Licensing/Distribution Question
- From: Harry Goldschmitt
- Re: [Ethereal-dev] Licensing/Distribution Question
- References:
- [Ethereal-dev] Licensing/Distribution Question
- From: Dave Shawley
- [Ethereal-dev] Licensing/Distribution Question
- Prev by Date: Re: [Ethereal-dev] Bug in compressed sniffer file decode
- Next by Date: Re: [Ethereal-dev] Would it be useful to export as rtpdump?
- Previous by thread: Re: [Ethereal-dev] Licensing/Distribution Question
- Next by thread: Re: [Ethereal-dev] Licensing/Distribution Question
- Index(es):