2009/5/13 Jan-Oliver Wagner <[email protected]>: > there was some explicit announcements by Tenable and the feed > was referred to as "GPL Feed". Not sure how other laws judge this, > but in Germany this means a user can savely assume they mean GPL > if they say GPL ;-) > If you label a package "GPL" and put something different inside, this > isn't really something you can base a law case on.
Yes you can, that's why the FSF requests developers to put the license in each and every file (header or source) that it might apply to. Actually, there are many cases of software in which this happens: they have a COPYING in the root tree that states 'GPL' but then they have files with headers w/o an explicit license or with different licenses. The COPYING does not apply to them and (in Debian) we maintainers have to strive to clarify each and every little file > However, they kept (and probably keep) reading/watching OpenVAS > and so far informed us when we were mistaken about license. > They gave some clear advice and we considered this during our license > clean up phase. I'm not sure they are reading this list. > As Michael said, clarification on single NVTs will lead nowhere! Why should > they answer at all? If they don't they can easily block us and we have to > rewrite it anyway. Again, why not give them the opportunity? Regards Javier _______________________________________________ Openvas-plugins mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wald.intevation.org/mailman/listinfo/openvas-plugins
