On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 08:45:04AM +0200, Michael Wiegand wrote: > * Jan Wagner [20. Apr 2009]: > > > What do I need to do to make the buildds love openvas-server again? > > > > I did all the needed steps. :) > > Thank you! :) > > > > > and openvas-plugins aren't in Debian et al. > > > > > > What would be your suggestion for getting it into Debian? Strip out all > > > offending plugins or strip all non-C plugins? > > > > Hmm .... I would suggest to drop all non-dfsg plugins and then let the users > > decide, if/what/when they update the plugins from your feed. I guess there > > is > > fancy script, which can do that. :) > > Using Javier's audit script, there are only two non-free plugins > remaining. Is this a complete list or are there other scripts Debian > might object to? > > The two scripts are: > apache_username.nasl > smb_hotfixes.inc > > Both are (C) Tenable without any licensing information.
I already mentioned (january 2009) that those two should be removed. It seems they were readded recently: svn log apache_username.nasl: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r3165 | mwiegand | 2009-04-23 09:18:25 +0200 (jue 23 de abr de 2009) | 3 lines * scripts/apache_username.nasl: Added note regarding license to make it clear that this script was indeed released under the GPL. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > smb_hotfixes.inc is included by eight other plugins: I suggested smb_hotfixes.inc was removed from the plugins package back in january. It was then since added (again?) to the OpenVAS plugins: svn log smb_hotfixes.inc ----------------------------------------------------------- r3166 | mwiegand | 2009-04-23 09:19:23 +0200 ( 23 de abr de 2009) | 3 lines * scripts/smb_hotfixes.inc: Added note regarding license to make it clear that this script was indeed released under the GPL. ----------------------------------------------------------- However, the header is not a proper "GPL header" and that's why the audit scripts still complains about it. In order to have these comply the header should be ammended to be a "proper" GPL > AFAICT, smb_hotfixes.inc was not part of the Nessus GPL Feed, can anyone > clarify where it came from? I'm not sure if the functionality provided > by smb_hotfixes.inc is really needed and how much work this would be. > I'm crossposting this to openvas-plugins in hope of some answers. It seems it might have been part of the GPL feed at some point. I, however, think this might be a mistake from Tenable. However, in one of our discussions (in july 2008 @ openvas-devel: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chandrashekhar B" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <007901c8f15d$1cdb0f30$0201a...@mahesh> (...) Tenable raised concern for smb_hotfixes.nasl and smb_hotfixes.inc when we published in our website but, didn't raise for smb_nt.inc. Chandra. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As said before, this should be clarified with Tenable. > I would not mind removing smb_hotfixes.inc and dependent plugins from > the Debian package if the damage is (as it seems) minimal. I suggest these should be removed, Tenable should be contacted and, if they agree, they should be included again. Regards Javier
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Openvas-plugins mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wald.intevation.org/mailman/listinfo/openvas-plugins
