* Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [10. May 2009]: > > 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:
They were never removed from the SVN repository. I just added the GPL note after we had determined that the two scripts were indeed part of the Tenable GPL tarball. > 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 I have modified the scripts to add a standard GPLv2 header. Is this enough. > > 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. The above was a mistake on my part since I failed to check the January 2005 tarball before writing this mail. > I, however, think this might be a mistake from Tenable. > (..) > 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. I respectfully disagree. I think it would be impractical and downright ridiculous to try to second-guess every plugin that Tenable put in their GPL feed and to ask Tenable if the really, really meant it. IMHO, the approach you propose would give Tenable an amount of influence in the OpenVAS development process they should not have. Call me a cynic, but I don't think Tenable will fall over themselves to handle questions from the OpenVAS project. ;) What if they suddenly realize that they didn't *really* mean to put a load of other plugings under the the GPL, even though they were part of the GPL feed? I think we have to draw the line here. I propose leaving the plugins in question in the SVN repository. If Tenable insists on the plugins not being GPL, it should be up to them to contact us and to provide a reason how the plugins ended up in the GPL feed. Again, sorry for making unclear statements in my initial mail. Regards, Michael -- Michael Wiegand | OpenPGP: D7D049EC | Intevation GmbH - www.intevation.de Neuer Graben 17, 49074 Osnabrück, Germany | AG Osnabrück, HR B 18998 Geschäftsführer: Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
pgpjNYiuiyenx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Openvas-plugins mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wald.intevation.org/mailman/listinfo/openvas-plugins
