Re: questions regarding new plugin policy

On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 04:09:29PM -0500, Renaud Deraison wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 03:18:25PM -0500, cfw wrote:
> >   As a related question: Is there anything preventing a company / group 
> > from writing their own plugins and distributing them under another 
> > license (other than Tenable's or the GPL)?  I would think not since the 
> > plugin is basically a program, similar to a perl script, that can be 
> > licensed however the author chooses. 
>
> Actually, plugins have to be written under the GPL, as NASL itself is
> under the GPL and most NASL scripts are basically 'linking' to libnasl
> to execute properly. If you want to write non-GPL NASL scripts, you need
> an authorization from the NASL copyright holder.

What about GPL plugins that include() or depend on non-GPL
file/plugin?

Does it make sense to distribute them through GPL feed?

What if someone writes a GPL plugin and include()'s file (or read KB
entry populated by another plugin) that is GPL'd at the moment. What
happens when that file.inc/plugin become rewritten under proprietary
licence later?

Martin Mačok
ICT Security Consultant
_______________________________________________
Nessus mailing list
Nessus@list.nessus.org
http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus