From: Cedric Blancher (blanchercartel-securite.fr)
Date: Sat Oct 08 2005 - 20:48:10 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Le samedi 08 octobre 2005 à 19:34 -0500, Frank Knobbe a écrit :
> If they kept Nessus 3 open source (not for community input, but for
> inspection), and only changed the license from GPL to a proprietary,
> restrictive license, they could have accomplished their goal of
> squashing the reseller-leeches while still keeping the source available.
> Open Source != Free Source

But what I don't get in changing license is why they would be more
inclined to sue people with a restrictive opensource license than with
GPL.
I mean, thoses appliances "reseller-leeches" must not advertise GPLed
software use and provide source code, do they ? So Tenable can sue them
for such license violation. So what makes you think they will do it with
another, even more restrictive, opensource license ?

And anyway, even if their reasons may seem dumb to some, it's their
software, their business, not ours. As long as every concerned author is
OK for changing license, they can do it and they don't need to justify
or apology. If one don't like Nessus 3 non being GPLed, then one just
have to keep using Nessus 2 and make it evolve as GPL allows.
Period.

--
http://sid.rstack.org/
PGP KeyID: 157E98EE FingerPrint: FA62226DA9E72FA8AECAA240008B480E157E98EE
>> Hi! I'm your friendly neighbourhood signature virus.
>> Copy me to your signature file and help me spread!

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]