On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 15:10, Gerald Combs wrote:
> Hi, all.
>
> Questions for copyright holders.
>
> In order to proceed with this, Ethereal's copyright holders need to
> agree on a final objective. Do we simply want ClearSight to stop
> infringement? Do we want them to open the source of Analyzer? Do we
> want damages? Should they be allowed to keep doing what they're
> doing, provided they pay a licensing fee?
They need to stop the infringement, and I concur with others on this
list that we should not allow them to pay for the privelige of
dual-licensing ethereal.
The ways they can stop infringement: release their product as GPL, stop
using Ethereal, or start using Ethereal at "arms length"... i.e, use it
like a scriptable tool.
They've profited from our GPL work, so restitution is in order. But the
amount should be discussed with a lawyer. If we do have legal fees, then
the money will pay for the fees. Any "profits" can be kept in the
ethereal "war chest", or donated to EFF, or a combination of those.
> We must also definitively establish who has a legal claim on
> Ethereal's copyright. There are _many_ people (and companies) listed
> in copyright notices in all of the files in the source code. There
> are many more listed in the AUTHORS file. Anyone who paid these
> people to write the code that's in Ethereal may have a copyright claim
> on a work-for-hire basis. Getting Ethereal's copyright status
> formally established is going to be a chore. I'll dedicate whatever
> time is necessary to do this.
>
> I'll try to set up a communication channel for Ethereal's copyright
> holders in the meantime. This will probably be in the form of another
> mailing list.
>
Just let us know whan you want that information.
--gilbert
