On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Guy Harris wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:35:55AM -0800, Guy Harris wrote:
> > I definitely want them to stop infringement;
>
> ...especially given that they have a typical EULA with its usual
> restrictions, are making such a bogus claim about having "licensed"
> Ethereal, and have been stalling us on this.
>
> > presumably opening the source of Analyzer isn't the only way
> > that they could do that - they could also perhaps run Ethereal
> > "at arm's length" rather than linking it into Analyzer, and I
> > wouldn't *require* them to open the source *if* they're willing
> > to change it not to link Ethereal code in;
>
> E.g., if they could make a native-Windows-GUI version of Ethereal that
> can act as an out-of-process OLE agent (or whatever it's called), so
> that their application can drive the Ethereal GUI, I'd *personally* be
> willing to accept that - as long as, of course, *all* the code for that
> version of Ethereal were made publicly available as GPLed code.
Actually, I would be happy if they were to do this arms-length thing as
well.
> If the consensus is to say "GPL Analyzer or else", however, I'd be
> willing to go along with that.
I personally don't want to take that attitude. I want them to stop
infringing and to stop this silly story about how they have 'licenced'
ethereal.
Regards
-----
Richard Sharpe, rsharpe[at]richardsharpe.com, rsharpe[at]samba.org,
sharpe[at]ethereal.com, http://www.richardsharpe.com
