2009/5/12 Michael Wiegand <[email protected]>: >> 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.
I'm not giving any powers to Tenable that they don't have already. They have the (c) after all. In any case, I'm highlighting this plugin because in the openvas-devel mailing list somebody said that they had been approached by Tenable (by Renaud I guess) and where asked to remove them. > 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? Then you have a copyright issue. If the plugin did not have (in the GPL feed) a proper GPL header Tenable could assert their rights to a different license and claim that they were not actually GPL-licensed but, instead, bundled with GPL software. If you keep the current situation and some months later, after people have produced plugins based/dependant on this .inc file OpenVAS might need to remove it and remove/rewrite the other plugins. It would be best to clarify this with Tenable before going forward. IMHO of course Javier _______________________________________________ Openvas-plugins mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wald.intevation.org/mailman/listinfo/openvas-plugins
