On 10/5/05, Renaud Deraison <deraison_at_nessus.org> wrote:
On Oct 5, 2005, at 13:49, Paul Mraz wrote:
> Virtually nobody isn't nobody: have you obtained permission from
> all copyright holders of patches to relicense their intellectual
> property?
Yes.
Amazing.
> I see, you like to use the open source community to test, patch,
> and help develop your product but you no longer want to anty-up,
> and give back to the community that made you.
I give away that product to the community. For free. Not GPL != $$$.
See, when I was talking about the "open source community," I was
talking about one which, well, appreciates OPEN SOURCE. The
"free" (for now) binary you talk about has little appeal to the
community.
> There was once was a time Tenable couldn't afford to write all
> their own plugins --- they can thank the open souce community for
> their roots, and they do so by throwing up the middle finger after
> they have some market headway.
That's a new one. Before Tenable I was writing a huge majority of the
plugins, and with Tenable we're are writing an overwhelming majority
of the plugins.
I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that Tenable
refuses to publish plugins developed under GPL when
they have plans to develop them in house and can make money off a
registered feed. How many people on this list have submitted plugins
only to have them trumped by a registered feed plugin? You make a fair
point about the improvment on the engine, but perhaps the open source
community felt that their efforts were better placed at improving
plugins. However, they may have taken a different point of view if they
knew that that concentration would mean the loss of the O/S nature of
the engine itself.
Why not release Nessus3 open source under a new license that that excludes devices and appliances?