If Tenable believes their license is being violated by other vulnerability scanning companies, then why not just take legal action to stop offenders?
It would seem to me that there are far more legitimate users then license violators out there. So Tenable's actions to try an stop the few will end up just annoying the many. -----Original Message----- From: Renaud Deraison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 4:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: questions regarding new plugin policy On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 04:14:05PM -0800, Eijiro Matsumoto wrote: > > No. If you submit a script, it belongs to you but > > has to be under the GPL. > > What about copyrighting the descriptions? Can > individual contributors copyright their descriptions > as you have suggested before? The consensus was that the copyright has to be shown somewhere. ie: the text is not under the GPL, but as long as the end user can easily find out who wrote the plugin, that's fine. > Is Tenable going to profit off individuals who > contribute plugins fully under GPL (i.e. code + descriptions) What do you imply by that ? There are dozens of companies embedding Nessus (GPL and non-GPL plugins) in their products, and it seems it has never bothered anyone on this list but me. The GPL feed is there for everyone to use - no registration, no delay. So if you submit a plugin under a GPL (something you've never done by the way), then Tenable does not even enter in the picture. -- Renaud _______________________________________________ Nessus mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus _______________________________________________ Nessus mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus
