This issue had been discussed to death on the list. If you'll read the archives
from last month, you see that Renaud has already addressed all your concerns.
I will say that following your logic, any program that links to Gnu Libc would
have to be GPL'ed as well. It is generally accepted that using shared libraries
does not constitute creating a derivative work of those libraries.
-----Original Message-----
From: nessus-bounces@list.nessus.org [mailto:nessus-bounces@list.nessus.org]
On Behalf Of M J
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 3:53 PM
To: Renaud Deraison
Cc: nessus@list.nessus.org
Subject: Re: GPL Clarification
Renuad,
I see plugins using ssh_get_info that are GPL posted
by you in CVS. So you get to cherry pick/decide what
plugins are GPL? I know and respect that you have a
MAJORITY in the contribution to Nessus... Haven't
others though too? I see something horribly wrong in
your approach here...
Based on what I have read in GPLv2, I'm coming to the
conclusion ANYTHING written in NASL should be GPL. A
plugin requires libnasl (which is 100% GPL'd) to work
correctly or matter of fact to work at all... Doesn't
that make EVERY plugin GPL (aka Derivative Work)?
I've been reading GPLv2 over and over here...
It's funny, the ONLY license that came across prior to
your Dec 7th change is GPLv2. Can you please direct me
to the license (Pre Dec 7th) that that ACTUALLY states
otherwise?
I'm sorry, I don't have a lawyer at my side. If I did,
I wouldn't be asking you for direction on this issue.
If it takes a lawyer to tell me what I can/can't do
with a supposed/kind of sorta GPL code...we'll that's
just plain wrong. ESPECIALLY WHEN SOMEONE WANTS TO
APPROPRIATELY CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROJECT!!!
This comes from:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
I heard that someone got a copy of a GPL'ed program
under another license. Is this possible?
The GNU GPL does not give users permission to attach
other licenses to the program. But the copyright
holder for a program can release it under several
different licenses in parallel. One of them may be the
GNU GPL. The license that comes in your copy, assuming
it was put in by the copyright holder and that you got
the copy legitimately, is the license that applies to
your copy.
I would like to release a program I wrote under the
GNU GPL, but I would like to use the same code in
non-free programs.
To release a non-free program is always ethically
tainted, but legally there is no obstacle to your
doing this. If you are the copyright holder for the
code, you can release it under various different
non-exclusive licenses at various times.
--- Renaud Deraison <deraison@nessus.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 06:52:03AM -0800, M J wrote:
Hi,
The reason i'm a bit confused here is becuase you
have
certain plugins (smb_nt_....) that have the exact
same
code (actual test code not description), however
have
different copyrights and none have the mention of
GPL.
Based on what I read in GPLv2, I see that kind of
plugin is a GPL plugin, correct?
Some plugins are released under the GPL, so yes.
My primary concern...
If I write a Fedora check and use the
ssh_getinfo.nasl
and the rpm.inc, do you consider that a GPL
plugin?
ssh_get_info.nasl is not under the GPL. Also if you
use rpm.inc, you use
Tenable code, so at that point you probably want to
see with your lawyer
regarding the legality of using the file.
-- Renaud
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
Nessus mailing list
Nessus@list.nessus.org
http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus
_______________________________________________
Nessus mailing list
Nessus@list.nessus.org
http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus
