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 [email protected] http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus
