Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: GPL Clarification |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:47:44 -0800 (PST) |
Yes, this has been on the message board before, however, I am not at all convinced we are getting consistent information. 1) There are a numerous amount of plugins the are state GPL and use the sbm.inc file. 2) I ask Renuad about this and he states "some" are GPL. 3) I mention three specfic plugins below. He states ssh_get_info.nasl and rpm.inc are not GPL. However, if you read below, you see Renuad replies a "yes" to GPL on "some" of the smb_nt.... plugins. Also, these GPL plugins use smb_nt.inc. 4)Then you see this in CVS (how convienent on timing): ##### CVS log for nessus-plugins/scripts/smb_nt.inc Revision 1.76 / (view) - annotate - [select for diffs] , Thu Jan 6 17:36:15 2005 UTC (22 hours, 58 minutes ago) by renaud Branch: MAIN CVS Tags: HEAD Changes since 1.75: +4 -1 lines Diff to previous 1.75 (C) clarification ##### Does this "(C) clarification" now mean that the smb.inc cannot be used to produce GPL plugins? --- M J <mjamja123@yahoo.com> wrote:
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 Jwrote:Hi,The reason i'm a bit confused here is becuaseyouhavecertain plugins (smb_nt_....) that have theexactsamecode (actual test code not description), howeverhavedifferent copyrights and none have the mentionofGPL.Based on what I read in GPLv2, I see that kindofplugin 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 thessh_getinfo.nasland the rpm.inc, do you consider that a GPLplugin? ssh_get_info.nasl is not under the GPL. Also ifyouuse rpm.inc, you use Tenable code, so at that point you probably wanttosee 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
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
_______________________________________________
Nessus mailing list
Nessus@list.nessus.org
http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Valid "Empy report" messages?, Erin Carroll |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | nessus-update-plugins issue on Solaris X86 Platform, Fred Chi |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: GPL Clarification, Michel Arboi |
| Next by Thread: | RE: GPL Clarification, Chris Vaughan |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |