Actually, when the tool was originally released it wasn't "free" (strings attached or not), but they tried to charge $500 per license as a closed source product.
http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2010/Sep/283 So at any rate some people have been complaining over and over for the use of the word "free" since version 2.0. http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2011/Jan/504 BTW I do not mind people making yet another UI for Metasploit, but this "free but not free" thing creates a dishonest image that could have easily been avoided by following the same practice every other donationware follows: let users download it freely and decide whether to donate or not based on their experience with the software. On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Esteban Cañizal <este...@canizal.com.ar>wrote: > Yes i do agree with you! everybody can comment and disagree as much as > they wish.... what I am trying to say is that there is a bunch of > people that always complains about the same things that have been > already answered, if you decided you don't like the tool just don't > use it and find a better one, at least that is what i usually do. I > read the same people saying the same things that have been said when > the tool was released (1.0) > > -- > Esteban Cañizal > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > -- “My daughter was asked by a little old lady in a London hotel restaurant what her daddy did - she answered, ‘He’s a pirate.’ I was very proud of that answer.” - *Johnny Depp*
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
