GPL Clarification

[Chris Vaughan]

This issue had been discussed to death on the list. If you'll read the archives from last month, you see that Renaud has already addressed all your concerns.

I will say that following your logic, any program that links to Gnu Libc would have to be GPL'ed as well. It is generally accepted that using shared libraries does not constitute creating a derivative work of those libraries. 

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	nessus-bounces at list.nessus.org [mailto:nessus-bounces at list.nessus.org]  On Behalf Of M J
Sent:	Thursday, January 06, 2005 3:53 PM
To:	Renaud Deraison
Cc:	nessus at list.nessus.org
Subject:	Re: GPL Clarification

Renuad,

I see plugins using ssh_get_info that are GPL posted
by you in CVS.  So you get to cherry pick/decide what
plugins are GPL? I know and respect that you have a
MAJORITY in the contribution to Nessus... Haven't
others though too? I see something horribly wrong in
your approach here...

Based on what I have read in GPLv2, I'm coming to the
conclusion ANYTHING written in NASL should be GPL. A
plugin requires libnasl (which is 100% GPL'd) to work
correctly or matter of fact to work at all... Doesn't
that make EVERY plugin GPL (aka Derivative Work)? 

I've been reading GPLv2 over and over here...

It's funny, the ONLY license that came across prior to
your Dec 7th change is GPLv2. Can you please direct me
to the license (Pre Dec 7th) that that ACTUALLY states
otherwise?

I'm sorry, I don't have a lawyer at my side. If I did,
I wouldn't be asking you for direction on this issue.
If it takes a lawyer to tell me what I can/can't do
with a supposed/kind of sorta GPL code...we'll that's
just plain wrong. ESPECIALLY WHEN SOMEONE WANTS TO
APPROPRIATELY CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROJECT!!!

This comes from:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

I heard that someone got a copy of a GPL'ed program
under another license. Is this possible? 

The GNU GPL does not give users permission to attach
other licenses to the program. But the copyright
holder for a program can release it under several
different licenses in parallel. One of them may be the
GNU GPL. The license that comes in your copy, assuming
it was put in by the copyright holder and that you got
the copy legitimately, is the license that applies to
your copy. 

I would like to release a program I wrote under the
GNU GPL, but I would like to use the same code in
non-free programs. 

To release a non-free program is always ethically
tainted, but legally there is no obstacle to your
doing this. If you are the copyright holder for the
code, you can release it under various different
non-exclusive licenses at various times. 



--- Renaud Deraison <deraison at nessus.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 06:52:03AM -0800, M J wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > The reason i'm a bit confused here is becuase you
> have
> > certain plugins (smb_nt_....) that have the exact
> same
> > code (actual test code not description), however
> have
> > different copyrights and none have the mention of
> GPL.
> > Based on what I read in GPLv2, I see that kind of
> > plugin is a GPL plugin, correct?
> 
> Some plugins are released under the GPL, so yes.
> 
> > My primary concern...
> > If I write a Fedora check and use the
> ssh_getinfo.nasl
> > and the rpm.inc, do you consider that a GPL
> plugin?
> 
> ssh_get_info.nasl is not under the GPL. Also if you
> use rpm.inc, you use
> Tenable code, so at that point you probably want to
> see with your lawyer
> regarding the legality of using the file.
> 
> 
> 			-- Renaud
>



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
_______________________________________________
Nessus mailing list
Nessus at list.nessus.org
http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus